Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SOUTH YORKSHIRE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT (No. 2) BILL

Lords amendments considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendments.

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL

Order for consideration of Lords amendment read.

To be considered tomorrow.

HASMONEAN HIGH SCHOOL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Computer Components

Mr. Leadbitter: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of the components of computers assembled in the United Kingdom are of (a) British and (b) European Economic Community origin.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth): Official statistics do not show the end uses of electronic components produced in the United Kingdom or the European Community. It is not possible, therefore, to give the information requested by the hon. Member.

Mr. Leadbitter: The Minister's reply is not encouraging, bearing in mind the known fact that neither the United Kingdom nor the Common Market produces any major computer components. Our share of computer components production thus reveals our low skills and damages our balance of payments. What will the Minister do to redress and reverse that damaging situation, bearing in mind the fact that research and development, and its funding, is going on apace in both Japan and America?

Mr. Forth: I regret that the hon. Gentleman wants to portray the industry in such a negative way. The House should know that the truth is that all the major countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, except Japan, have trade deficits in information technology. Another truth is that the United Kingdom has a large trade surplus in information technology with the rest of the European Community,

which amounted to £900 million last year. Therefore, although it is unreasonable to pick on any one sector of the economy and to identify the trade flows within that sector, I should like the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to see the industry for what it is—a successful and growing industry, which is attracting inward investment, creating employment and generally being a great success.

Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend will be aware that the aerospace industry is a major user of electronic and computer components. In the light of Monday's announcement about the cancellation of 33 Tornado aircraft, will my hon. Friend ensure that both the aerospace and electronics companies in Lancashire, which are so effective, are given the help of his Department's excellent enterprise scheme to support the workers who may lose their jobs?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is correct to identify that the task that now faces all of us is to ensure that the employment that was previously provided by defence sector work is switched as quickly and effectively as possible to alternative work. My hon. Friend is also right to point out that we manufacture, export and re-export considerable quantities of both defence and civil equipment that contains a significant element of electronics componentry and information technology. I am sure that we all want that to continue. I note that, as ever, my hon. Friend is active in those matters and I can assure him that the Department of Trade and Industry will be helping to discover every possible way in which we can switch our efforts from defence to civil activities.

Dr. Moonie: I found the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) somewhat surprising because I am aware—and I thought that he would be—that his Department conducted a survey of computer manufacturers in this country over the past year, which identified a shortage of local suppliers for those components. Will the Minister confirm whether that is the case and tell us what his Department wall do to improve that position?

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman claims knowledge beyond that which I possess—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Forth.

Mr. Forth: I can confirm that the hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that the Department has commissioned and is undertaking the survey to which he referred. That work is as yet incomplete. The hon. Gentleman may be prepared to jump to conclusions on the basis of incomplete information, but neither I nor my colleages are prepared to do so. The hon. Gentleman will have to contain himself, be a bit patient and wait for the full results to emerge before we jump to any conclusions.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that computer companies do not know what proportion of components are manufactured in the United Kingdom? The computer companies are keenly interested in what I sense is the underlying purpose of the question, which is to discover the quantity of components that come here from Japan. As yet there are no answers, and I do not believe that the Department will be able to find them at this stage.
Will my hon. Friend confirm that the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) may be inaccurate in his


statement that few hardware components are manufactured in the United Kingdom? I am delighted to say that hard disc manufacturing takes place in West Germany and in Denmark, for example. That is the central story of component manufacturing—

Hon. Members: Too long.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that that is enough.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is renowned for her knowledge of the industry. I am grateful to her for her assistance in clarification. An important point has been made and it is one of which we should not lose sight. We are talking of a global industry in which components move freely across international boundaries. Goods are assembled and manufactured in a variety of different ways. To seek to identify whether components flow one way or another is probably a futile exercise. I doubt whether we could base any policy initiatives on such information.

British Steel

Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he intends to meet the British Steel board and shareholders at the annual general meeting of British Steel.

Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will meet the chairman of British Steel to discuss the future of Ravenscraig; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet the chairman of British Steel to discuss the future of the Scottish steel industry.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he intends to meet the British Steel board and shareholders at the annual general meeting of British Steel.

Mr. Maxton: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has recently met the chairman of British Steel to discuss British Steel's plans for future capacity.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): With permission, I shall answer Question 2 together with Questions 5, 9, 10 and 19.

Mr. Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Ridley: I met the chairman of British Steel—

Mr. Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have just heard the Secretary of State say that he is taking Question 19, which is in my name, with Question 2 and others. I must inform you, Mr. Speaker, that this is the first that I have heard of this grouping. I might well not have been in my place at this stage—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a matter for departmental Ministers to decide. I have often heard hon. Members complain that their questions have not been brought before us. I have never heard anyone complain that his question will be called.

Mr. Ridley: I met the chairman of British Steel on 5 June and have no plans at this stage for a further meeting. Although I do not expect to attend British Steel's annual general meeting, I shall be represented.

Mr. Salmond: Has the Secretary of State read the comments attributed to Sir Robert Scholey in The Guardian this morning? The report states that British Steel has invested £100 million in a German steel plant, because after 1992 the United Kingdom will no longer be the centre of gravity for manufacturing in the European Community. Where does the right hon. Gentleman think that the centre of gravity lies for supplying the millions of tonnes of steel products that will be required in the North sea market throughout the 1990s? If British Steel is unwilling to supply the products from Scotland, will the right hon. Gentleman go to British Steel's annual general meeting and argue for those productive assets to be turned over to an international investor who would be willing to make a success of the Scottish operation?

Mr. Ridley: I am a very small shareholder in British Steel. I do not think that any views that I should express at the annual general meeting would carry much weight. British Steel is becoming an international company of great repute and success. The fact that it is extending its activities into the Community is something that the hon. Gentleman should welcome. It is not my job to second-guess how best to go about improving the company's performance.

Mr. Canavan: Will the Secretary of State condemn the chairman's failure to meet the trade union representatives at Ravenscraig and will he urge the chairman to do so now, instead of simply writing a secret letter to the Secretary of State for Scotland in a vain effort to try and justify the closure of the hot strip mill? Will the Government publish the contents of that letter, in view of the great public anxiety about what until recently was a publicly owned industry and British Steel's failure so far to give any public justification for the proposed closure, which would have a devastating effect on the whole Scottish economy?

Mr. Ridley: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have urged British Steel to discuss its proposals with and explain them to the work force and the trade unions, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. Secondly, my right hon. and learned Friend has requested British Steel to agree to the publication of the letter to which the hon. Gentleman refers. No response has yet been received, but the request has been made.

Mr. McKelvey: Nevertheless, is not it the case that recently a group of Scottish Labour Members briefed the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the devastating effect that the closure would have on the Scottish economy? Therefore, will he abandon this glaikit approach and adopt a more progressive approach? Will he say from the Dispatch Box whether he is prepared to line up fully with the Secretary of State for Scotland to lead the fight against British Steel and get it to reverse this scandalous, vandalous decision against the Scottish economy?

Mr. Ridley: Indeed, a group of Labour Members came to visit me and at the end of the day they said that they were grateful for the support that I had offered the Secretary of State for Scotland. The hon. Gentleman is


wrong on that point. The more I hear about the matter, the less I can discover what the difference is between the Government and the Labour party. The Labour party does not appear to have the slightest intention of wanting to renationalise British Steel, nor to make subsidies to rescue the Ravenscraig plant, nor to take the power to issue directives to British Steel. Our position is exactly the same and I cannot see what the argument is about.

Mrs. Ewing: Cannot the Secretary of State understand that his laissez faire approach is equated with a don't care approach in Scotland and that his hands-off philosophy means that he is washing his hands of the steel industry in Scotland? Given the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and the fact that British Steel is also considering an additional acquisition in Spain and joint ventures in France and West Germany, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether his Department ever takes Scotland into its consideration and whether the assets of British Steel in Scotland will be used to the advantage of the Scottish economy?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Lady must direct her strictures at the Labour party in Scotland, which shares our view that the Government should seek only to examine carefully the arguments that British Steel advances, to respond to them and to discuss them with British Steel with a view, we hope, to winning British Steel over to our view. That is what the Government are doing and what the Labour party wants to do. The Labour party does not go anything like as far as the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). She should pursue her quarrel with the Labour party, not with us.

Mr. Maxton: Does the Secretary of State agree with the Secretary of State for Scotland that British Steel should reverse its decision to close the Ravenscraig strip mill? Can we have a clear answer that the Secretary of State believes in demanding the reversal of that closure decision?

Mr. Ridley: I am delighted to tell the hon. Gentleman that the parliamentary clerk in my Department rang the hon. Gentleman's secretary at 10.15 am with the information that his question was to be included in this group. I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman did not get the message. On his substantive question, I have nothing to add to what the House decided in a debate. The motion was passed and the Government are busy, actively pursuing it. That is the right answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend realise that many Conservative Members believe that commercial decisions should properly be left to commercial managers? However, we also believe that in a modern, dynamic economy, management should consult the workers fully and adequately, particularly when their production records have never been achieved before and are beating those of foreign competitors. If British Steel has no place for its Scottish plants in its future plans—it is perfectly entitled not to—it should honour its promise and put them up for sale now as a going concern.

Mr. Ridley: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that this is ultimately a commercial decision for British Steel. I support his assertion that British Steel's efficiency is becoming formidable. It now produces 347 tonnes per man year, well above the EEC average of 330 tonnes. If it is to

remain at the head of the world league of steel producers, we must not unnecessarily fetter its commercial decision making. I have already agreed that it is a good principle that companies should consult their work forces and persuade them of the rightness of their decisions.

Mr. Holt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a long time since British Steel was taken out of the public sector, away from inept Ministers making inept decisions that cost taxpayers millions of pounds per day? The money is now redirected into social services, hospital building and other sectors, instead of being squandered and wasted. This year, British Steel has a record profit of £733 million and is the envy of steel makers throughout the world.

Mr. Ridley: I agree with my hon. Friend that should be as inept as my predecessors in trying to judge the steel market or to run a steel industry. Those are not my skills.

Mr. Favell: My right hon. Friend will hear continuously from the Labour party, especially Scottish Members, about the—as they term it—deindustrialisation of Scotland. Does he agree that if the Scots were not so bellicose towards management trying to make proper management decisions, people would be more inclined to invest and remain invested there?

Mr. Ridley: As an English Borderer, I should not dare to express any views on the subject raised by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Is not it a most astonishing sign of the extraordinary turn-round that has taken place in British manufacturing industry in the past few years that British Steel, once regarded as the sick man of the international steel industry, should now be buying a venerable German company in what is traditionally regarded as the most sophisticated steel market in the world?

Mr. Ridley: I believe that our industry needs excellence, leading to domination of world markets. The House will agree not only that British Steel has done remarkably well in the short time since it was released from the public sector, but that none of us wants to do anything to hamper it from doing even better in future.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does not the Secretary of State recognise that he has responsibility for both competition and trade policy? In those circumstances, can he be complacent about the fact that British Steel is a monopoly producer in the United Kingdom that can run down assets and deny them to a potential competitor that might service the market and keep down prices? Why does he stand by and allow British Steel to abandon markets in the North sea and Europe, which could be served by a Scottish-based competitor?

Mr. Ridley: Neither of the hon. Gentleman's hypotheses has yet happened. He will know that various people have written to the Director General of Fair Trading about the proposed closure of the strip mill. The director general is considering those representations and will give me advice. If I receive advice from him—as I am sure I shall—I shall consider it carefully when making any decision. One cannot presume a decision about closure or refusal to supply markets in advance of its being taken.

Mr. Oppenheim: Was not Ravenscraig originally built at the behest of politicians? Is not it also the case that


political meddling over the years has done a great deal of damage to the British steel industry? Bearing in mind the incredible record of British Steel's management over the past few years as opposed to the record of politicians, would not the best course be for the Government to let the management get on with its job?

Mr. Ridley: I confirm what my hon. Friend has said. The decision to build the steelworks at Ravenscraig was part of a policy of splitting the family silver in half, if I may put it that way. I also entirely agree with him that the reason for the recent success of British Steel has been the freeing of the management from constraints in order to allow it to get on with doing best what only it knows how.

Mr. Gordon Brown: Will the Minister confirm precisely that the Government's policy is to deplore the closure and to ask for it to be reconsidered with a view to the decision being reversed? Will he tell us and list precisely what he has done to implement that objective? Will he and the Secretary of State for Scotland now meet the board of British Steel to discuss the letter that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has received and will he refer the matter to the Office of Fair Trading and ask it to look at monopoly and restrictive practices? Will he conduct an independent assessment within government of the strip mill's prospects and will he end the do nothing, care nothing, listen to nothing attitude that characterises the performance of the Department of Trade and Industry in this matter as in everything else?

Mr. Ridley: Curiously enough, the hon. Gentleman must not have been listening because I have already answered all those questions. He has not answered my question, which I shall repeat. In what respect does the Government's policy differ from the policy of the Labour party—not that of the Scottish Nationalists? This is a row between the Scottish Nationalist party and the Scottish Labour party. Does he agree that Labour has no intention of renationalising British Steel, that it cannot subsidise it and does not have powers of direction? The Labour party should stop this discreditable conduct and end the pain that it is trying to inflict on the House.

Trade Deficit

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met his Japanese and United States counterparts to discuss the United Kingdom trade deficit; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ridley: I have regular meetings with my Japanese and United States counterparts at which the full range of trade issues affecting our countries are discussed.

Mrs. Gorman: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree, to paraphrase what the Leader of the Opposition said last week, that that question is even sillier than it seems because the inflow of capital from the United States and Japan far exceeds whatever the trade deficit figure is said to be? It is ridiculous for the House frequently to flagellate itself about trade deficits when more than 190 top European companies are based in Britain and operate in other countries remitting profits to Britain. The trade balance merely measures packets of salt going backwards and forwards across Customs.

Mr. Ridley: I agree with my hon. Friend that Britain's massive investment in industrial and commercial assets overseas benefits probably more than 14 out of 15 people, if I may also quote the Leader of the Opposition. I must part company with her slightly on one matter because I should like to see the trade deficit reduced. It is important for us to regain our share of world trade, increase our exports and reduce our imports.

Mr. Hoyle: Would not it be true to say that that complacent and lethargic approach basically matches the performance of the Department of Trade and Industry? I am not aware of the Secretary of State's desires in relation to flagellation. He would do far better to address himself to the ever-growing deficit with Japan, the United States and West Germany and to use the endeavours of his Department to ensure that there is more investment in British industry and that it is more competitive in relation to those countries.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman must keep the facts in mind. We have a tiny deficit with the United States and over the past four years we have had a surplus in total. The Japanese deficit is relatively small and is improving; the German deficit is the real problem. One cannot put those problems entirely at the door of the Government, as some of them result from the fact that British unit labour costs are rising at 8·1 per cent. annually, whereas our competitors' unit labour costs are not.

Mr. David Martin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if reports that the BBC world service is to cut back on its service to Japan are true, that would have an unhelpful effect on our trading relationship with Japan?

Mr. Ridley: I have no knowledge of those facts and that matter is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Textiles

Mr. Haynes: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the current balance of trade in textiles.

Mr. Forth: Latest available figures show that imports of textiles exceeded exports by £1,564 million in the 12 months to March 1990.

Mr. Haynes: Is the Minister aware that when I worked at the pit and we had our summer holidays, we brought the ponies out from the stables down in the pit and put them in a field for the holidays? Could I suggest that the Secretary of State should be farmed out with them, and that we should leave him there because of the response that I have just had from the Minister? Is he aware that 153,000 jobs have been lost in textiles and that the east midlands has really suffered? I want to know what is going to happen. The Secretary of State should pull his socks up. Let us do something for the textile industry.

Mr. Forth: Everyone is painfully aware of the difficulties that have arisen in the textile sector, affecting many parts of the country for some years. On the other hand, we should also be aware that the overall trade gap, as I mentioned, is going down—in this context perhaps I should say "shrinking"—slightly year by year and that certain significant sectors of the industry—woollen, worsted, flax and soft furnishings—are in surplus. That


shows that it would be helpful if the industry directed itself towards high-quality, high-value-added manufacture, in which our excellence of design and quality of manufacture can he brought to bear in a world trading context. That would make a great difference to the future of the industry.

Mrs. Peacock: Will my hon. Friend welcome the continual growth of export manufactures, especially of woollen textiles, which are of high value, from Yorkshire and our part of the world over the past five years? We have many good examples of what is happening in Yorkshire. Does he think that that growth would continue under a Labour Government?

Mr. Forth: I am well aware of the great interest and support that my hon. Friend gives to the industry in her part of the world. I have had the honour to visit parts of that industry. I suspect that were there ever to be a change of Government and a change of policy—if we knew what policies would emanate from the Opposition; that is still entirely unclear—the type of measures that could emanate from the Opposition would cripple the textile industry as well as all other industries by adding to costs and prejudicing their competitive position, which is showing some signs of improvement.

Mr. Janner: Does the Under-Secretary not know that the textile industry in Leicester and the whole of the east midlands is in a state of catastrophic decline and depression, and that the Government are continuing to do nothing to assist it? What are the Government prepared to do now, before the industry practically disappears?

Mr. Forth: The hon. and learned Gentleman raises another question in my mind—what would he or his party do about it? I am not aware of anything in the Labour party's latest convoluted policy document that deals with the industry in any way. If the Opposition are saying that they would put money into the textile industry, I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will consult his leader and ask where the money is to come from, since his leader seems to be totally confused about where it would come from and where it would go to.

Industry (Grants)

Mr. Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people are employed in his Department dealing with grants to industry; and what is their estimated annual cost.

The Minister for Industry (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The Department's main schemes involving grants to industry are regional selective assistance, regional development grants, regional enterprise grants, the consultancy initiative and support for R and D and innovation. Some 850 of the Department's staff work on the development of policy and administration of these schemes at an estimated annual cost of £19 million. That represents some 7 per cent. of the Department's total manpower.

Mr. Gill: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that all the human and financial resources currently targeted at individual commercial projects would be better spent on infrastructure for the benefit of all taxpayers and that, in conjunction with the lower wage rates and property values in the regions, that would be the best way of stimulating permanent and sustainable employment in those areas?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes two valuable points. Most certainly the Government should invest in infrastructure and most certainly the regions can do a great deal for themselves. But regional assistance through Government grant is also important. I am glad to say that since April 1987 regional selective assistance is estimated to have created or safeguarded about 185,000 jobs in Great Britain.

Mr. John D. Taylor: In view of the large number of people employed, do the British taxpayers of Northern Ireland contribute to their salaries?

Mr. Hogg: I rather hope so.

Mr. Ward: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it seems that an astonishingly large number of people distribute the money? Would not it be better to get rid of them and of the grant and cut taxes?

Mr. Hogg: I am glad to say that the Government have an unequal record in cutting taxes. We have done better than any Government at any time. Regional selective assistance and regional policy are also important and should be pursued.

Mr. Gordon Brown: On the question of grants to industry and the European Commission's extended consideration of industry grants given in the Rover deal, will the Minister admit to the House the extent of not only the hidden subsidies given in grants to British Aerospace but the hidden subsidies in the form of tax concessions, which Lord Young has admitted could be worth millions of pounds? Will the Minister take this opportunity to admit to the House, to which he should have reported months ago, that in offering hidden subsidies which should have been declared, the Government were guilty of not only incompetence but deception?

Mr. Hogg: There are several unpleasant features about the hon. Gentleman. One of them is that he is doing his best to persuade the Commission to penalise British Aerospace more than it should. That is a disreputable policy of which he should be profoundly ashamed.

Cars

Mr. Mans: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met his European counterparts to discuss the treatment of cars manufactured in the United Kingdom by Japanese-owned companies.

Mr. Ridley: I discussed the subject yesterday at the Foreign Affairs Council. I have insisted that cars manufactured in the European Commission by Japanese-owned companies should continue to enjoy unlimited free circulation throughout the Community, and I believe that that has now been accepted.

Mr. Mans: Will my right hon. Friend continue to welcome investment by Japanese companies in Britain? Will he assure me that the European Commission will treat motor cars manufactured by those companies in this country in exactly the same way as they treat motor cars manufactured by Ford and General Motors in Germany?

Mr. Ridley: Yes, Sir. I have insisted on that point, despite contrary views within the Community. In the meeting yesterday I discerned that it has now been firmly established that we are acting within the treaty of Rome in


demanding that that be the case. I am also happy to say that satisfactory progress has been made on the whole issue.

Sir Hal Miller: In his discussions, has my right hon. Friend been able to discover the basis of the objection to British workers in British factories making vehicles from European components financed by British money? What possible basis can there be for objecting to the free circulation of those vehicles throughout the Common Market? Has my right hon. Friend taken note of joint ventures by Japanese companies with companies in the countries of our continental partners and of the joint ventures that they have established in third-world countries such as Brazil, Mexico and the far east—to say nothing of eastern Europe?

Mr. Ridley: In my opinion, there can be no question but that cars manufactured in this country are part of Community production. I see no reason why any member state should think otherwise. On my hon. Friend's second point, there are more than 90 major Japanese investments in France, for example—and no one has suggested that the products of those factories should be treated as other than Community production. Nor do I believe for one moment than anyone could or should.

Mr. Cryer: Has the Secretary of State studied yesterday's decision by the Luxembourg court and its potential effect on Government decisions—for example, in car manufacturing? Does that decision mean that a manufacturer anywhere in the world who is dissatisfied with the position and actions taken by the British Government—for example, in giving regional selective assistance to a car component manufacturer in Scotland, Yorkshire or elsewhere—could apply to a British court and have the Government's decision, and legislation passed by this Parliament, suspended? If it could do that, it would set the Government and Parliament at naught. Should not the Government and Parliament resist such action?

Mr. Ridley: I cannot claim to be a lawyer, who could pronounce on such matters. I have read the articles that appeared in this morning's press, and feel that the hon. Gentleman would be wiser to seek an interpretation from someone more skilled in the law. It was always implicit on our joining the Community that we should have control over our affairs from the centre as to where we yielded in that respect. That is the importance of the doctrine of subsidiarity in making clear where the boundary is.

Mr. Grylls: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the importance of the news that he has given the House this afternoon, that motor cars made in Great Britain by Japanese-owned firms will be freely allowed on to the continent? Will he make sure that that actually happens? Until those motor cars are seen to flow out of the factories in Britain and on to the continent, there will still be doubt about whether the free market of 1992 will really arrive.

Mr. Ridley: I can only give my hon. Friend the assurance that I am confident that that result will prevail. Cars are already flowing out of at least one factory, in north-east England, and on to the continent without let or hindrance.
As I said, that issue was raised a second time in discussions, and I am confident that it has been suitably

resolved. I cannot claim that the way in which the Community is moving will result in a totally free market for cars after 1992, but it will for British-made cars.

Post Office

Miss Hoey: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met the chairman of the Post Office to discuss the state of industrial relations.

Mr. Forth: Industrial relations are a matter for the Post Office, its employees, and their trade unions.

Miss Hoey: In view of the difficulty that the Post Office has both in recruiting and retaining postal workers, will the Minister meet the chairman of the Post Office urgently and make sure that the increased postal charges that have recently been announced are used not to prop up the profits of the Post Office but to improve the services to people—and particularly to improve the working conditions and pay of the many thousands of loyal postal workers in this country?

Mr. Forth: The hon. Lady will be delighted to know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I meet the chairman of the Post Office and his colleagues regularly to keep in touch with the efforts that the Post Office is making to do precisely what she asks—to maintain a consistent investment policy and ensure that pay rewards to employees are sufficient to attract and retain employees of a suitable quality to enable the Post Office to provide an acceptable level of service to the people of Britain. The Post Office can demonstrate considerable success in this matter, and I am sure that the hon. Lady will join me in wishing it well in the continuation of that programme.

Mr. Gow: As industrial relations in the privatised industries have been much better than those in the nationalised industries, will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to reaffirm that the Government are still considering the possibility of introducing a measure of privatisation and competition into the collection and delivery of letters?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend knows that the Department is constantly reviewing ways in which improvements can be brought about in organisations such as the Post Office. That is a continuing process. But in the short term, we must look to the management and employees of the Post Office to sustain improvements in their quality of service so that requests such as that made by my hon. Friend will be muted and can continue to be put in their place.

Mr. Ewing: Can the Minister confirm that when he was a Back Bencher he supported privatisation of the royal mail, whereas now that he is Minister responsible for the Post Office, he has changed his mind and there is now no possibility—we are all grateful for this—of the privatisation of the royal mail?

Mr. Forth: I shall share a secret with the hon. Gentleman: remarkable things happen when one is translated from the Back Benches to the Dispatch Box and if, from time to time, the hon. Gentleman has noticed the tiniest change in my demeanour, he should not be too surprised.

Mr. John Marshall: Is my hon. Friend aware that no postal collections are taking place in my constituency today? He has frequently said that the Post office monopoly is a privilege, not a right. Does he accept that many Conservative Members believe that that privilege should be taken away?

Mr. Forth: I am aware of the difficulties in my hon. Friend's constituency. I repeat what I said at the beginning: neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State nor I have—or will have—any responsibility for industrial relations. I must emphasise, however, that every time unofficial action is taken that prejudices the level of service given by the Post Office, it weakens the argument that most Opposition Members will wish to advance in favour of maintaining the present status of the Post Office. My hon. Friend knows that well. His argument, which he has pursued consistently, and which he will be pursuing again in an Adjournment debate on Monday, is strengthened every time unofficial industrial action reduces the level of service given by the Post Office.

Juno Project

Mr. Fearn: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received concerning the future funding of the Juno project; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The organisers of the Juno project have requested Government funding. Juno was conceived as a private sector venture to put a British astronaut into spece on the basis of commercial and media sponsorship. I could not justify diverting resources from the Government's own space programme which has quite different goals, notably Earth observation and telecommunications.

Mr. Fearn: Does the Minister agree that the Juno project involves more than simply putting a woman from the Mars bars company or a service man from the British Army into space? Is he aware that microgravity experiments were to be conducted and that they would have had a bearing on both AIDS and arthritis? Would not the resultant savings to the health service amount to more than the £12 million for the want of which the project is in jeopardy?

Mr. Hogg: I doubt the hon. Gentleman's conclusion. What I am certain about is that the Government are right to target our spending programme as we are targeting it at present — to use space for specific useful purposes. I do not think that Juno is a proper candidate for public money in that context.

Mr. Batiste: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that research in space is a vital ingredient of the high-tech industries of the future, where many important technologies will be field tested? As the cost of those experiments is so high, it is vital that Government funds are not diverted from matters that we deem to be of strategic importance to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The Juno mission is not of strategic importance to the United Kingdom. What are of strategic importance are the polar platform and the Earth observation programme, to which we are subscribing, and the latest European Space Agency

telecommunications satellite programme, to which we are also subscribing. We are putting our money where it matters.

Regional Assistance

Mr. Martlew: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the level of regional development grants and regional selective assistance in (a) 1978–79 and (b) the last financial year.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: In 1978–79, expenditure in Great Britain on regional development grants and regional selective assistance was £416·9 million and £104·5 million respectively, while in 1989–90 expenditure was £203·9 million and £197·8 million respectively at current prices.

Mr. Martlew: In the northern region, development grants have been cut in real terms by £118 million a year and selective assistance has been cut by 75 per cent. As unemployment in the north-west is still much higher than 1979, what justification can the Government give for that? With unemployment rising and industry being hit by high interest rates and inflation, will the Minister reconsider putting more money into the north-west to stimulate investment?

Mr. Hogg: This is an interesting question because it points to two things: first, a lack of knowledge and, secondly, a change in the Labour party programme, as it is disclosed. The hon. Gentleman spoke of rising employment. In his constituency, which is an unassisted area, between March 1989 and March 1990 unemployment fell by 21·4 per cent.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: What about 1979?

Mr. Hogg: I said 1989 to 1990. In the adjoining constituency of Workington, which is an assisted area, between March 1989 and March 1990 unemployment fell by 28·3 per cent., so the policy is working. The hon. Gentleman has disclosed a new spending programme for the Labour party. If he looks at page 16 of his party's policy document he will find that it mentions only a reshaping of regional grants. He wants to bring back regional development grants, but that would cost £1 billion. I do not suppose that that has been provided for in the spending plans.

Mr. Yeo: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that if anyone were to advocate an increase in development grants and selective assistance, to be paid for exclusively by extra taxes on one person in 15, the burden placed on those taxpayers would be crippling and the disincentive effects and the likely increase in unemployment would be substantial?

Mr. Hogg: I entirely agree. The programme disclosed in the Labour party document is only a small part of its spending programmes. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) has made it quite plain that he wants to bring back regional development grants, but it would cost £1 billion to reinstate them to 1978–79 figures. Is that included in the bill of £50 billion, which independent experts have assessed as the cost of the Labour party programme?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Minister looked quite pathetic in answering my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). He completely misrepresented what my hon. Friend said.
What discussions are going on between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment about West Cumbria's application for objective 2 assistance? Does he realise that we desperately need that assistance in West Cumbria because we face as many as 3,000 or 4,000 redundancies following the run down of the Sellafield thermal oxide reprocessing plant construction project? We need the money and that help in West Cumbria. What will the Minister do?

Mr. Hogg: That is an extraordinary question. I have had the pleasure of telling the House that unemployment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency fell by 28·3 per cent. between March 1989 and March 1990. For him to describe me as "pathetic" when I am giving good news represents a curious reversal of values.

Mr. Sumberg: Instead of listening to the dismal Jimmies opposite, will my hon. and learned Friend pay a visit to the north-west of England, where he will see a revival of economic activity, a reversal of the north-south divide and a reduction in unemployment? The only threat to all that would be the election of the Labour party to government.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is manifestly right. If a Government try to introduce a spending programme that will cost £50 billion—according to independent assessments—it will lead to rampant inflation and massive taxation. However, that is the policy of the Labour party, and we shall remind the electorate of that fact until they are fed up with it.

Mr. Caborn: In future, will the Minister obtain his briefings from the Department of Trade and Industry, and not from the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker)? If he did, we might hear a little more sense. Does he agree that since the last Labour Government there have been cuts in regional grant amounting to £660 million a year? Such cuts lead to headlines such as
British cities struggle in prosperity league.
The Government have excelled even themselves by relegating 15 of our great cities to the bottom of the European league: we now have the worst record in the European Community.
Rather than attacking the Labour party's policy, the Minister should read the Audit Commission's report on the Government's performance in dispensing aid. The report calls it
a patchwork quilt of complexity which cannot be understood either by business or local authorities.
Will the Minister arrange for a debate on the report?

Mr. Hogg: I know that the Labour party is upset about the way in which the public are beginning to realise what is in its programme. Let me tell the House—[Interruption.]

Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Order Paper refers to "Questions" to the Secretary of State: that means that Ministers must answer questions. This little arrogant shit has not answered a single question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that word immediately, and must not repeat it.

Mr. Foulkes: Which word do you want me to withdraw, Mr. Speaker—little, arrogant or shit?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows which word: the last.

Mr. Foulkes: I withdraw the last word.

Mr. Hogg: All this whingeing and whining from Opposition Members is amusing and pathetic. We are now costing the Labour party's programme. Let me add that it was not my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) who attached a bill of £50 billion, but the independent experts Midland Montagu Research.

West Germany

Mr. Jack Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the current balance of trade in manufactured goods with West Germany.

Mr. Ridley: In the four months ended April 1990 the United Kingdom trade deficit in manufactured goods with West Germany was £3·1 billion.

Mr. Thompson: You will have noted, Mr. Speaker, the reference by Ministers to the Labour party's policy document. At least we have a policy for trade and industry. The Secretary of State's figure of £3·1 billion for the first four months of this year suggests that the Government will match, if not exceed, last year's deficit of £9·6 billion, which was part of a deficit of f 14·5 billion with EEC countries. Has the Secretary of State learnt any lessons from the West German Government's attitude to industry? It supports industry with railway systems, infrastructure and support for training. There are significant lessons to be learnt from our European neighbours about trade and industry, but has the Secretary of State learnt any yet?

Mr. Ridley: I have learnt one lesson: to impose a further burden on British industry of 0·5 per cent. payroll tax on its total labour costs, yielding £1 billion, would be crippling to its competitiveness and would make the deficit with West Germany worse. That is the policy contained in the Labour party's document, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Will he now formally denounce his Front Bench for suggesting imposing penalties on our industry which would make our trade deficit worse? Will he admit that it is time that the Labour party thought again?

Mr. Roger King: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the way to beat countries such as Germany is to produce finer and better quality goods? Will he join me in congratulating Tom Walkinshaw Racing and Jaguar Cars on their magnificent Le Mans victory, when they came first and second, beating a West German Porsche well and truly into third place?

Mr. Ridley: I agree with my hon. Friend that the way to improve our trade performance is to improve quality and our competitiveness so that we can sell in every market of the world. Of course, I join my hon. Friend in congratulating those who won that victory. It is a great British success which I want to see translated into a dividend in terms of sales around the world.

European Court of Justice (Decision)

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take the application under Standing Order No. 20 first.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you, under Standing Order No. 20—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am taking the Standing Order No. 20 application in the hon. Member's name before points of order.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I beg to ask leave, under Standing Order No. 20, for an immediate debate on the following subject, namely,
The consequences for the sovereignty of the House of Commons of the decision of the European Court of Justice on interim relief.
Although there has appeared to be an all-party conspiracy in the House not to discuss dramatic European developments which have consequences for our sovereignty, I believe that the events of yesterday are so specific and serious that we must consider them now as a free Parliament.
The issue is certainly specific. Until yesterday, it was always considered that the task of our Parliament was to make laws and the task of the courts was to interpret them. Following our accession to the EEC, we had to accept that, under article 2, if a European Court decided that any of our laws were in conflict with Euro-law, we had to consider its judgment and then draft alternative laws or amendments to change our laws, in due course and taking account of all the other laws of our land. However, yesterday's judgment on the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 creates an entirely new situation. The European Court has taken upon itself the right to declare that an Act of this Parliament becomes null and void if it receives what it regards as a justifiable complaint of damage or loss until such time as the Court makes a decision. [Interruption.] If hon. Members do not think that this is a serious matter, let them remember that, until yesterday, no court has ever told this Parliament to suspend or nullify the law.
The seriousness of the matter is abundantly clear. Any law that we enacted last week, that we will consider today or that we enact next week can be repealed in a flash by the judges in Luxembourg, the moment they receive a complaint from anyone in Britain or elsewhere which they consider serious enough to investigate. The immediate issue is serious for our fishermen and trawler operators, who were led to believe by the Government and the Opposition that the modest quota of fish stocks allocated to the United Kingdom by Brussels belonged to them, but it now appears that those stocks can be eaten up by the Spanish or other operators who have no link with the United Kingdom. This serious issue is only one of what may be a substantial number of similar cases in the future.
This issue should certainly take precedence over all other business. There is no point in our going ahead with passing laws when we have no guarantee that those laws will prevail. We might be able to cope with or to plan for a new situation if Euro-laws were clear and precise, but we have a special problem in that the wording of the treaty of Rome and the Single European Act is so general and so non-specific that it is almost impossible to anticipate what the European Court would say.
There are very few issues that deserve special priority, but this is surely one. It affects the sovereignty of this House, the rights of the people and, more importantly, the power of Parliament, which has always been to respond to the people, not to non-elected officials. We must have a debate. The issue is vital.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the implications for parliamentary sovereignty of the decision of the European Court of Justice yesterday on interim relief.
I have listened with great attention to what the hon. Member said about this matter. As he knows, I have a difficult decision to take: whether his application should take precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow.
In this case, the matter that he has raised does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] Order. I therefore cannot submit his application to the House. Nevertheless, he has raised a vital matter concerning the sovereignty of Parliament. I hope that the House will address it in due time.

Points of Order

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) first.

Mr. Stuart Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your protection as a Back-Bench Member of this House. It is clear that, at Question Time, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) and the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) were deprived of the opportunity of putting a question because the Minister of State sought to hijack the proceedings. He did so in response to a question that was put to him by quoting figures on Labour party policy that had been provided to him by Conservative central office.
I seek your protection because, if called, we should have been able to put our questions at Question Time and contribute to the debate. I hope that you will request Ministers to reply to the questions on the Order Paper.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is really impossible to expect the Chair to monitor the answers given to questions. That is a matter for the Ministers concerned.
I must say that today I do not think that the length of answers to questions was the problem. I think the problem was that so many questions were linked. [HON. MEMBERS:"Hear, hear."] Those questions fell high on the Order Paper. Had they fallen a little lower down, it is just possible that we could have taken them at the end of Question Time.

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will hear the points of order, but I must remind the House that today we have a very important Report stage which is time-limited. The first guillotine falls at 7 o'clock. Points of order are bound to take time out of the speeches of those hon. Members who wish to participate in the debate.

Mr. Derek Conway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Well, I will take it.

Mr. Conway: Can I ask Mr. Speaker, that, when you leave the Chamber today, you should study column 19 of the Official Report for 16 June 1983, and consider the words in that column said by you—that you,
in your name and on your behalf, made claim by humble petition to Her Majesty to all your ancient and undoubted rights and privileges"—[Official Report, 16 June 1983: Vol. 44, c.19.]
Would you reflect upon that speech and consider whether the sovereignty of this House has been given away during this afternoon's proceedings and yesterday's ruling?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should do further homework and reflect upon the Single European Act, which was passed by this House. [Interruption.] Order. The difficult decision that I have had to take today is whether the submission by the hon. Member for

Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) under Standing Order No. 20 met the criteria of the Standing Order. I rejected it on that basis, but I went on to say that it was indeed a very important matter for the whole House of Commons and that I hoped that there would be opportunities to address it.

Mr. Martin Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I feel sure that you and the House will join me in expressing sympathy to the families affected by the tragic British Rail accident south of Doncaster. In view of the Secretary of State's statement to the papers, has he told you that he intends to make a statement to the House on safety at level crossings?

Mr. Speaker: I have not had such a request. I am sure that the whole House shares the concern of the hon. Gentleman about his constituents.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This ruling of the European Court sets aside our constitution as we have understood it for several hundred years. Two principles are of fundamental importance: one is the supremacy of Parliament, which represents the supremacy of the British people. For the first time in our national history, a ruling has been imposed that overrides the sovereignty of the British people. Therefore, to abdicate that is surely the most important issue that the House can discuss under any circumstances. Our deliberations this afternoon may be invalidated by this new constitutional principle. It is at the very heart of the business of the House.

Mr. Speaker: I entirely share the concern of the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members who no doubt will be rising on this matter. I repeat that the Leader of the House is here and I hope that he will have heard what has been said. [Interruption.] I am bound by the criteria of the Standing Order.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I return to the serious issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell)? Do you agree that Question Time today did the House of Commons no credit whatsoever? We reached only 13 questions. In the next 24 hours, will you reflect on what happened and possibly give your views tomorrow on the abuse of Question Time, not only from one side of the House? Rightly, you are quick enough to call some hon. Members to order, but others seem to get away with proverbial murder.

Mr. Speaker: That is a reprehensible statement from the hon. Gentleman. I cannot be held responsible for answers that are given from the Front Bench, provided that they are in order. [AN HON. MEMBER: "They were not."] They may have been lengthy, but the whole House knows that some rough things are said in this Chamber. That is what it is all about.

Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When the European Communities Act 1972 was passed, all the White Papers and documents that were produced made it clear that there would not be any fundamental change in the position of the British constitution as regards legislation passed by the House, save where Acts of Parliament took into account the


obligations we had entered into under the European Communities Act. That did not include a repeal or an implied repeal of the Bill of Rights. It is well established that, under article 9 of the Bill of Rights, the courts do not give instructions to Parliament. Would you be good enough to consider that question in the light of what is written in "Erskine May" and the Bill of Rights?

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. These are matters which the hon. Gentleman should properly raise in a debate that I hope we shall have on the matter.

Mr. John Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raised with you on question 2 the linking of those five questions on British Steel. Let me make it clear that I have received no letter on the board, which is the normal courtesy from the Department. The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) has very kindly showed me the letter that the Department of Trade and Industry sent her, and there is no mention of my name in that letter. Secondly, those five questions are not the same, so I received no answer to the question that I had on the Order Paper, which was totally different from the other four questions. The only common thing is that they are all about British Steel, but it is possible to ask a variety of different questions about British Steel.
I believe that those five questions were a deliberate abuse by the Department of Trade and Industry to exclude other hon. Members who have steel interests in their constituencies, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), from asking supplementary questions. I have to say—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a surprising point of order to put to me. The hon. Gentleman was actually called: he asked a question.

Mr. Maxton: That is not the point.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot say to the Department that I will not hear the questions that it has linked. The mark, I believe, is that questions may be linked up to 20. With any luck, if we had a straight run down the Order Paper, we might have got to 19. However, that did not happen today. I believe that the hon. Gentleman was very fortunate.

Mr. Maxton: Exactly, Mr. Speaker. I accept that my question might not have been reached, but that is not my point. The point is that the Department of Trade and Industry should not have linked together five questions on that subject. I intend to write to you, Mr. Speaker, to tell you that I believe that the procedures of the House should be changed, so that your approval must be gained before questions can be linked.

The Minister for Industry (Mr. Douglas Hogg): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. First, I understand that the parliamentary clerk in the DTI notified the Secretary of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton).

Mr. Maxton: That is irrelevant.

Mr. Hogg: Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in grouping the questions, did so in part at least to ensure that the hon. Member for Cathcart

would have an opportunity to get in at Question Time. His question was No.19, and it probably would not have been reached had the questions not been grouped.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a very important debate today on which the first guillotine falls at 7 o'clock. There is a great deal of interest in that debate and I propose to take two more points of order, one from each side of the House, and then we shall move on.

Sir Dudley Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While appreciating your difficulties and of course totally accepting your decisions, as we always do on these occasions, do you not think that there is an awful danger that the public will not understand why we are not going to debate a matter which is of enormous importance—perhaps one of the most major issues to face this Parliament for the past 40 years?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should look carefully at Standing Order No. 20 and consider the criteria. I have a very difficult decision to take on that matter. I must weigh whether the business is of such importance that it should take precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow. I hope that the public will understand that. I do not deny that it is a very important matter. However, I must judge whether it is of such urgency that it should take precedence over the business already set down. I hope very much that there will be a debate on this very important matter in parliamentary time.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take one more point of order. No waving of arms.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Are these questions on the European Court's decision really out of order? Surely the pass was sold on the sovereignty of this Parliament when Conservative Members voted for the Single European Act?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not taking any more points of order.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not taking any more points of order. [Interruption.] Order. I am on my feet.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the draft Horse Racing (Northern Ireland) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not taking any more points of order. I have a duty to protect the business of this House.

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No. I ask the hon. Gentleman to sit down.

Motor Vehicle Excise Licence (Amendment)

Mr. Roger King: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make the issuing of excise licences for motor vehicles conditional on proof of valid insurance and roadworthiness for the period of the licence.
In essence, my Bill is quite straightforward. It seeks to co-ordinate the length of time a vehicle may be licensed for road use with the validity of that vehicle's insurance and relevant test certificate.
At the moment, anyone seeking to obtain an excise licence for a motor vehicle must upon application also present a valid insurance certificate and a valid test certificate. In terms of the validity of the two certificates, it is necessary that they are valid only on the day of the excise licence. Thus, it is quite permissible for a certificate of insurance to expire 48 hours after an excise licence has been issued.
It is estimated that, at present, 20 per cent. of motorists drive around uninsured. Some do so wilfully; some because they have forgotten to renew, despite reminders from their insurance companies; and others have difficulty meeting the premiums and never get around to renewing. That total represents not only 1·5 million lost premiums, and an added burden for the majority of motorists, but the risk of the law-abiding being involved in an accident with someone who is uninsured. The consequent heartache and anger at that growing problem are known to most of us.
The innocent party can, of course, seek compensation from the Motor Insurers Bureau in the event of being involved in an accident with someone who is uninsured, but that does not mask the fact that the premiums that are paid into the central fund come from motorists who do adequately insure. It therefore follows that premiums reflect a percentage contribution to the fund. With claims ever rising in value, that can only get worse.
The annual test certificate is another requirement that is open to exploitation. Let us suppose that one applies for an excise licence in January for, say, six months. The vehicle in question may have passed its annual check-up in August of the preceding year, but the certificate would be still valid for the issue of either a 12 or six-month excise licence in January. Let us also suppose that subsequent to the expiry of the six-month excise licence, the motorist then renews on 1 July for a further 12 months. He can still use the valid MOT certificate with just one month to run, but does not need to present his car for a further test until he needs to renew the excise licence a year later. That vehicle need not have been tested for 22 months.
Critics will say that more spot checks are needed by the police and that fines should be greater to deter those who are tempted to ignore the legal requirements. I absolutely agree that that would be welcome, but however hard the police crack down, the chances of being caught are very much in favour of the motorist—and the police surely have better things to do. Others might say that the concept of an excise licence is obsolete anyway and that it should be done away with, with the loss of income being made up by additional duty on motor fuel. I do not object to that either. Indeed, I would urge it—in which case, in the


absence of an excise licence, the current insurance disc should be displayed. Without such progress, I believe that my Bill represents a worthwhile step forward.
Both the AA and RAC have expressed interest in my proposals. However, it is only fair to tell the House that while understanding the reasons for my proposals, the Association of British Insurers can see some practical problems. Its view is that a conterminus system as envisaged might present difficulties when owners change cars. Ensuring that insurance is in phase with excise licences would possibly require a huge amount of cashing up of current policies so that new ones could be issued. Equally, no-claims bonus calculations and implementation would be affected by such chopping and changing, calculated as it is on an annualised basis.
Although I understand the practical difficulties of adapting current insurance company practices to my Bill's requirements, I believe that the prize of bringing in a large percentage of those currently uninsured would be worth the effort.
Annual insurance polices could normally be sold in monthly increments. Many policy holders already pay their premiums by monthly instalments anyway, so it would not be much of a departure from present practice. It would make cashing in and renewal relatively simple. Besides, whenever a change of car takes place a new insurance proposal must be made. The procedure for calculating credits should be quite straightforward.
When a new or used car is purchased from a dealer, a new vehicle excise licence is usually part of the deal. Indeed, most dealers cash in a used car's excise licence unless a quick sale is expected. The prospective purchaser should have no difficulty in obtaining the relevant insurance to cover the period of the new excise licence.
Insurers will point out that cover notes to cover the time needed between car purchase and the issue of a proper policy would no longer be possible, but it would still be permissible under my Bill so long as the vehicle in question did not require the issue of an immediate excise licence. Used car sales might well be covered in that way, as might pre-registered new cars.
Private sales would involve the purchaser in notifying his insurance company of the relevant details; a monthly premium adjustment would be made and a new policy established to cover the excise licence renewal when the time comes. No-claims bonuses could be introduced at the appropriate anniversary month.
Owners of car fleets that are registered as businesses and covered by corporate insurance would be exempt from

the requirements of my Bill. I estimate that at least five vehicles would comprise a fleet for the purpose of that requirement.
The Bill would extend to cars and light vans, but would exclude commercial vehicles, buses and coaches, for which existing practices can be maintained.
Although I said earlier that the annual test certificate is open to exploitation, it is not possible to organise a totally conterminus arrangement with the excise licence in the same way as for insurance. Therefore, my Bill proposes that a vehicle's annual test certificate should have a validity of at least six months when an application for an excise licence is made.
The Bill may seem simple enough in its aims, but initially it will create new systems. Given the opportunity of starting afresh on a clean sheet of paper, I believe that some of the obtacles, or all of them, can be overcome. I understand the reservations that some might have, but I believe that driving a vehicle on our highways is a responsible exercise and that we must ensure that legal requirements are met by everyone. It seems reasonable to ensure that, when a car owner seeks a vehicle excise licence, his vehicle is adequately insured for the appropriate period and that it is in a reasonable state of repair. At no other stage does the opportunity occur to make those checks. The display of a current excise licence should signify that the vehicle is properly insured and roadworthy.
Some will say that too many owners do not purchase an excise licence as things stand. That may be true but at least one can see whether a current licence is on display. If the licence were brighter and stood out more, monitoring display would be much easier.
The Bill outlines broad concepts that I believe are entirely feasible. It represents a useful step forward, and that is why I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Roger King, Sir Hal Miller, Sir Trevor Skeet, Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark, Mr. Gary Waller, Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. Keith Mans, Mr. David Evans, Mr. Roger Knapman and Mr. Christopher Gill.

MOTOR VEHICLE EXCISE LICENCE (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Roger King accordingly presented a Bill to make the issuing of excise licences for motor vehicles conditional on proof of valid insurance and roadworthiness for the period of the licence; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 July and to be printed [Bill 165.]

Points of Order

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. And it is very important.

Mr. Speaker: Is it? All points of order are very important.

Mr. Skinner: It is to do—

Mr. Speaker: Is it a point of order that relates to the Bill with which we are about to deal?

Mr. Skinner: Yes. It relates also to the Bill which has just been presented.

Mr. Speaker: No. I am not taking it.

Mr. Skinner: You are just giving in, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to sit down.

HUMAN FERTILISATION AND EMBRYOLOGY BILL [LORDS] (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

Ordered,
That the Reports [6 and 9 June] from the Business Committee be now considered.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]

Reports considered accordingly.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in their resolutions, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 80 [Business Committee] and agreed to.

Following is the report of the Business Committee [6
June, [as amended by the Committee's report [19 June]]:
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords] (Business Committee),—The Chairman of Ways and Means reported from the Business Committee, That it had come to a Resolution in respect of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords], which it had directed him to report to the House:
That—

(1) The order in which proceedings on consideration are taken shall be that shown in the second column of the Table set out below;
(2) the allotted days which under the Order [2nd April] are given to the proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be allotted in the manner shown in that Table; and
(3) subject to the provisions of that Order, each part of the proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of that Table.


TABLE


Allotted day
Proceedings
Time for conclusion of proceedings


First day
Amendments to: Clauses Nos. 1 to 5, Schedule No. 1, Clauses Nos. 6 to 11, and Schedule No. 2
7 p.m.



Amendments to: Clause No. 12, Schedule No. 3, Clauses Nos. 13 to 29, Schedule No. 4, Clauses Nos. 30 to 33, and Clauses Nos. 35 to 42 and 44, Government new Clauses and new Schedules not relating to the termination of pregnancy, and other new Clauses and new Schedules not relating to the termination of pregnancy.
11 p.m.


Second day
New Clauses Nos. 1 and 6, amendment No. 31, new Clause No. 5, amendment No. 54, new Clause No. 7.
7 p.m.



Amendments Nos. 4, 30, 29, 28 and remaining proceedings on consideration.
10 p.m.



Third Reading
11 p.m.

Orders of the Day — Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords]

[IST ALLOTTED DAY]

As amended [in Committee and in the Standing Committee], considered.

Clause 1

MEANING OF "EMBRYO", "GAMETE" AND ASSOCIATED EXPRESSIONS

Mr. Speaker: The first amendment today is No. 38.

Ms. Jo Richardson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to seek your guidance, Sir, and I do not know whether this is the right time to do so. The Secretary of State for Health and the Solicitor-General have tabled some new clauses, which are to be discussed today. They were tabled only yesterday and we saw them only yesterday. I should like to know whether the Secretary of State has notes on clauses. We have no notes on the new clauses and the Library staff are trying to get their heads round the new clauses. We need to understand them. They may be perfectly all right but we would like some elaboration on what they are about.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that I am right in saying that all the new clauses in question are unlikely to be debated before 7 o'clock. They are to be debated after the first guillotine falls. I shall make every effort to ensure that briefing is available to the hon. Lady and to any other right hon. or hon. Member. Notes on clauses will be made available at the first possible opportunity.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Bill that is before us has implications for the Common Market. There are people and countries in the Common Market that do not have the same abortion rights as those which have been recognised by this Parliament. If the Italians, for example, decided that they were not happy with the way in which abortion rights were being exercised in this country, they could, if they obtained a majority in the Common Market, decide to impose conditions upon Britain. That is very important for you, Mr. Speaker.
Those on the Government Front Bench agree with the Common Market. The Opposition Front Bench now agrees with the Common Market and all that takes place within it. Liberals have long been defenders of Common Market; they are Euro-fanatics. The Scottish Nationalists believe in the Common Market. My point is that many Back Benchers do not agree with the Common Market.
You will have representations from Back Benchers, Mr. Speaker, but you may not have representations from the Government Front Bench or the Opposition Front Bench. The net result is that the Front Benches will not ask for a debate on this important constitutional matter, so we Back Benchers have to rely on your decision that the matter is

important enough for Parliament, despite the collaboration between the Front Benches. That is why this is an important matter for you, Mr. Speaker.
Previous Speakers of the House have had to stand up against the monarch and various interests. Now the Speaker of the House—yourself, Sir—must stand up against the mighty Common Market, which is beginning to do what it likes. As a result of the government's ruling, it will impose its rules, conditions and constitution on this Parliament. Somebody must speak out about it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member may be surprised to hear that I entirely share his anxiety, but he should have made that speech when we debated the Single European Act—

Mr. Skinner: I voted against it.

Mr. Speaker: But the House passed it. I will not go back on the decision which I have taken. We all agree that the matter is important. The question is whether it is so urgent that it must be debated immediately. [Interruption.] Order. Back Benchers also have time at their disposal and there will be opportunities for them to use that time on this important matter, even if the Front Benches do not find time, which I hope they will.

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. Marlow: It is not about the timing of the debate.

Mr. Speaker: Is it about this Bill?

Mr. Marlow: It is about the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: Can the hon. Member put his hand on his heart and say that it is about this Bill?

Mr. Marlow: I put my hand on my heart and say that this is about the Bill.
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) rightly said that, even if the House passed the Bill, the Act of Parliament could be as confetti as a result of the ruling made by the court yesterday. The ruling does as much potential damage to this House as was threatened by Guy Fawkes in his day. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, for your assistance. You are the champion of this House. Even after the Single European Act, "Erskine May" says that the powers of the EC institutions—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman put the wrong hand on his heart. We must proceed with today's Bill.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No. I call the Minister.

The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): I beg to move amendment No. 38, in page 1, line 17, leave out from 'in vitro' to 'and' in line 18 and insert
'(in their application to those where fertilisation is complete) are to those where fertilisation began outside the human body whether or not it was completed there'.
This is a formal drafting amendment which follows from the change made to the definition of fertilisation in another place. It is important to make it clear when fertilisation begins, to inform the arrangements concerned


with consents. The amendment clarifies beyond any doubt where fertilisation begins—whether inside or outside the body.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: We now come to the next group of amendments.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No. I am not going back to this matter.

Mr. Cryer: It has to do with the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: I wonder which hand the hon. Gentleman will put on his heart.

Mr. Cryer: I put my hand on my heart.
We are dealing with several amendments to an important Bill and I share your concern, Mr. Speaker, that we should be debating them. Nevertheless, may we have an assurance from the Secretary of State that if, when the Bill is enacted, it is challenged, as the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 has been challenged, in the court in Luxembourg, he will use the available path demonstrated in "Erskine May" which is that primary legislation can maintain the supremacy of Parliament? If the Bill is challenged, will the Secretary of State be prepared to consult his Cabinet colleagues about producing legislation to maintain our supremacy? If we do not get that assurance, we are not exactly occupying our time usefully.

Mr. Speaker: That point will have been taken by the Secretary of State.

Clause 3

PROHIBITIONS IN CONNECTION WITH EMBRYOS

Mr. Frank Field: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 35, at end insert—
'( ) bringing about the creation of an embryo other than in the course of providing treatment services,'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 7, in schedule 2, page 29, line 32, leave out from 'authorise' to 'keeping' in line 34.

No. 8, in line 41, leave out paragraph (d).

No. 9, in page 29, leave out lines 44 and 45.

No. 10, in page 30, line 1, after 'authorise,' insert—
'(a) the administration of a substance to an embryo for the purpose of ascertaining the properties of that substance in relation to the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of disease, or
(b)'.

No. 11, in page 30, line I, after 'authorise,' insert—
`(aa) any activity designed to develop more effective techniques of contraception, or
(b)'

Mr. Field: The House has decided that it will allow research on embryos. When we voted last time, there was an option before us—we could either vote against or for research. The House gave a clear undertaking about what it wished. I wish to propose a third option that was not considered during that evening when we, as a Committee of the whole House, considered the Bill. That option is that there should be research, but embryos should not be created merely for the sake of research, but only, as they are now, for the treatment of patients.
The current law is that all embryos that are created belong to patients and that research can occur in two circumstances. First, it can take place on embryos that are not used in the current round of infertility treatment. Secondly, a much more rare opportunity arises for research on embryos that are not used in the current round of infertility treatment, but are frozen and used later.
As I understand the law, in those circumstances the patient will have a major say about what happens to those embryos. The clinics that conduct such affairs in the best way include Bourne hall in Cambridgeshire. There, not only are patients and researchers consulted, but the clinic has an ethics committee that considers whether research should be allowed.
Therefore, amendment No. 6 and the consequential amendment No. 7 are designed to put on the statute book what most of us understand to be the current and best treatment.
When an amendment is moved, the mover is sometimes accused of trying to wreck a decision that the House has already made. Some people may have that as their motive, but I do not. If anyone says that mine is a wrecking amendment, they must answer two questions. First, if the amendment were passed, to what extent would what appeared on the statute book be different from current arrangements? Secondly, under the new arrangements, which authorities could not undertake research that they now undertake? If mine were a wrecking amendment, presumably one would be able to answer those two questions.
I have tabled amendment Nos. 6 and 7 because although I accept that the House has made a decision about research, I want to ensure that what we understand by current practice and best behaviour is placed on the statute book. Therefore, the choice involves best practice or changing current procedures of linking the creation of embryos to the treatment of patients. If the amendment is not accepted I fear that we shall open up the possibility —I put it no higher than that—of creating embryo farms. That is a different decision, I think, from the one that we made in Committee.

Sir Bernard Braine: I am happy to support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). As the House knows, I have always been opposed to research that involves the destruction of a human embryo. I accept, as I think the hon. Gentleman accepts, the decision by the majority to allow research up to 14 days, even though I voted against it. The amendment is a reasonable compromise and I support it because it seeks to establish some limit on the research that we have already sanctioned. Therefore, it is not a repeat of what the majority decided in Committee.
At the outset of one of the most important debates in the Session, I should like to make clear what I think the amendment will and will not do. It allows human embryos to be created only for the purpose of providing treatment for infertility. Therefore, it will not stop in vitro fertilisation. It does not put any limit on the number of embryos that may be created, to be used as part of a course of such treatment. Nor will it stop all experimentation on human embryos. Spare embryos which remain after IVF and which are destined, alas, to die can be used for experimentation.
What the amendment will stop, however, is the creation of human embryos purely and solely for research. To allow


such research is totally unacceptable to many hon. Members and to many citizens. The amendment is not a ban but a compromise that does not give a free-for-all to the experimenters. The Bill cannot be allowed to stand in its present form.

Mr. Frank Field: I am puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's use of the word "compromise". I tabled the amendment not as a compromise but as a clarification of what I understand the status quo to be in research. The amendment places no restrictions on research. If hon. Members want to place restrictions on such research, they must do so by supporting later amendments. I repeat that the amendment is not a compromise but seeks to place on the statute book what I understand to be current best practice.

Sir Bernard Braine: I stand corrected, and accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. "Compromise" was not the best word to have chosen. However, under the Bill as it is presently drafted, doctors and scientists can deliberately create a human being who will have no chance of developing in its mother's womb or of being born. It will be experimented upon and destroyed within days. I find this one of the most repugnant aspects of these developments, because it means using a human being as a means to an end.
At the start of our debate, we should stand back a little and ask ourselves, as I ask the Minister, where we are going. Have we given sufficient thought to developments that have been occurring in the field of human embryology or what is likely to happen in the years immediately ahead? For example, the Warnock report was published six years ago and the notion then of creating embryos purely for research horrified many people, including many hon. Members.
I was told by British and French scientists only yesterday that developments in the freezing of female eggs which are not yet human beings have progressed so rapidly that the time could soon come when the freezing of embryos may become obsolete. There would then be no need to freeze an embryo, which has a totally different status from the gamete, which has no hope of life unless it is fertilised. That is an important distinction.
I emphasise that there can be no doubt that we are dealing here with human life at its very earliest stage. In all our debates on the Bill, I have said—and I shall say again —that, with the fertilisation of a human egg by human sperm, a completely new human being begins who, if that being is ensured an appropriate environment and nutrients, has all the potential to grow and develop to adulthood.
Can we accept that it is permissible to create a new life only to destroy it? In my book, that would be flagrant abuse of the medical skills which have surely been developed to create and to uphold life, rather than to destroy it. Admittedly, the newly fertilised egg or embryo —he or she; the sex of the embryo is determined at that stage—will have to pass through many stages before adulthood. When we speak of an embryo, we are speaking of a human being at the beginning of that journey.
Surely our intention must never be to start a life merely in order to deliberately destroy it. As I said earlier, the amendment concerns a limit on research—it is a question of degree. It seeks to set a limit on the purpose for which

a human embryo can be created. Therefore, we have to ask ourselves, "What is the right use to make of a human embryo?"
4.15 pm
All lines of research are not permitted in other areas. Surely medical ethics requires us to draw the line at some point. I contend that the boundaries of research must be determined by the status of the subject. I call in aid the declaration of Helsinki, which clearly states:
in research on man the interests of science and society must never take precedence over considerations relating to the well-being of the subject.
Therefore, one thing is crystal clear to me: it is unacceptable to treat the human embryo as experimental material.
David Short, professor emeritus in clinical medicine at the university of Aberdeen, who is one of my advisers, has pointed out to me that there is a world of difference between experimenting with an embryo and with a blood cell. The human embryo is a complete individual with the potential to become a child, a young person and an adult —perhaps even a genius. A blood cell is no more than a replaceable part of a human body.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: As a member of the university of Aberdeen, does the emeritus professor speak with the authority of the existing department of biology there? The answer is no.

Sir Bernard Braine: I am not going to answer for the professor. Advisers to the pro-life group in the House, which covers all political parties, are drawn from professors emeritus whose names are world famous. I shall not go into the qualifications of a distinguished figure from the medical world. I am as entitled to quote him as the hon. Gentleman is entitled to quote the authorities upon whom he places reliance.
Without the amendment we would be creating a category of sub-humans purely for research, who can be destroyed with impunity in the course of such research. The pro-experimenters and the Government, too, are asking us for the right to create a sub-human category for experimentation, seemingly for the benefit of mankind. This Bill, unamended, would give them that right. So, in our arrogance, we would start down the slippery road of accepting that the end justifies the means. That may sound extreme, but it is what we will be doing with human embryos unless the amendment is accepted.
It is prefectly true to say that the medical world is divided on the issue—I allow that. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists tells us that we should allow the creation of embryos which are intended purely for research purposes to continue. It does not say why, but merely tells us that such research
is an essential part of research on factors which influence the process of fertilisation".
I have information to the contrary. The creation of embryos purely for research purposes is not necessary to improve IVF procedures. In Victoria and South Australia, where embryo research is banned, clinical practice has not been affected adversely. In Victoria, the take-home-baby rate is better than in any other centre in the world. It is not better by a large margin, but it is better. That suggests that what the Bill seeks to do is not strictly necessary. Indeed, it may not be necessary at all.
So what are embryos wanted for? The House is made up of intelligent men and women. Surely they should not


only ask that question but press for an answer. The two main problematical areas in the development of IVF are the culture medium and methods of embryo transfer. That is a proper field for research.
What is the real reason why a free-for-all in embryo research is required? Is not it true that embryos are wanted for drug testing and new contraceptives, not only for IVF treatment? In those activities, there are vast fortunes to be made. Let us face the reality of what lies behind the Bill. Therefore, I commend the amendment to the House before it is too late and we start travelling down a road which we and our descendants will bitterly regret.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), will not be surprised that, once again, I have a different opinion from him on these matters. The words that he used showed where our differences lie. He believes that the pre-embryo at the one, two or three-day stage is a human being in its own right. I respect his opinion but he knows that I do not share it. As we start from different positions, we may be led to different conclusions, as at earlier stages.
I suggest there are several reasons why we need to examine the matter carefully before incorporating the amendment into the Bill. I accept the reasons given by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and his rationale. I remind him that simply because Bourne hall, which we all respect for the work that it does, does not necessarily need the techniques does not mean that other reputable research establishments may not need them. It depends on the emphasis and type of research undertaken. It does not necessarily mean that valid, acceptable research —assuming that we do not ban all research—could benefit from using such techniques.
I also wish to examine the wording of the amendment, especially the term "treatment services". The term is defined in clause 2 as
medical, surgical or obstetric services provided to the public or a section of the public for the purpose of assisting women to carry children.
It is a general term. Such services are not intended to assist a specific woman to carry a specific child. Therefore, even if the amendment is passed and includes the words
bringing about the creation of an embryo other than in the course of providing treatment services",
the term "treatment services" could mean services to help women in general to have children rather than to help a specific woman to have a specific child.

Mr. Frank Field: indicated assent.

Mr. Wigley: I am glad to note that the hon. Member for Birkenhead agrees with that interpretation.
That might mean that, if the wording of the amendment is incorporated in the Bill, it would not be as restricitve as some of us fear. My next few comments will apply in case the interpretation of the wording is restrictive. The House would benefit if the Minister could clarify the interpretation that the Government and their legal advisers would put on the wording.
The Father of the House seeks a restrictive interpretation of the wording. I understand his way of looking at the matter, but we must agree to disagree. If the interpretation is restrictive, valuable research could be lost. The type of research that could be lost falls into

several categories. First, there is research on fertilisation for the benefit of those who have difficulty in conceiving. Those undertaking such research would seek to improve the level of knowledge in an area that is poorly understood at present. It is critical that, in improving the rate of fertilisation, the techniques employed do not lead to abnormality. For that reason, those undertaking such research will from time to time need to ascertain how the cells develop, at the four-cell and eight-cell stage, to identify any abnormality. That would involve the creation of embryos for the purpose of establishing whether there is likely to be an abnormality.
If the meaning of the words in amendment No. 6 implies acceptance that that can be done, because it will in the generality help people to have children, that is a very different interpretation from that which the Father of the House placed on the wording of the amendment. If I understood his words correctly, he was seeking a restriction of the kind I described. Fertilisation research is important, as is maximising the help available to those affected. Such research would be undertaken on donated eggs during treatment.

Mr. Frank Field: I understand the amendment in the way that the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) interprets it. Therefore, the course of treatment that he describes would be safeguarded if it were passed. What would not be permitted would be the creation of embryos specifically for the purpose of furthering contraceptive techniques, for example. I was careful to ensure that no such riders were incorporated in the amendment. If restrictions are wanted, it will be for hon. Members to move amendments later, if they are lucky enough to have them called, and we may then vote separately on them. However, I am totally with the hon. Gentleman as he develops his argument.

Mr. Wigley: I am grateful for that helpful intervention and to know where the hon. Member for Birkenhead is leading the argument. We may not agree on some of the implications, but in the first step, he and I are in agreement that certain research would be allowed. However, I suspect that other hon. Members would not want to see even that research undertaken.
Research is important in understanding, for example, why so many chromosomal abnormalities occur at or shortly after fertilisation. If it is possible to detect and better understand such abnormalities, that will clearly help the generality of women to have babies without some of the problems that might otherwise arise, which could lead to a child being handicapped or to the loss of the baby during pregnancy. I assume that such work is acceptable to the hon. Member for Birkenhead.
Attempts are also being made to develop polar body biopsy—though I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman for Birkenhead finds that acceptable also—and to improve the sperm's ability to fertilise the egg in cases of male sub-fertility. I assume that the hon. Gentleman would certainly find that work acceptable. I imagine that a fourth category of research is not acceptable to the hon. Gentleman, judging from his earlier intervention. I refer to the development of contraceptive methods. Clearly, that is another issue that may divide the House—but in a different way from the basic divisions between right hon. and hon. Members regarding the Bill in general.
I personally believe that contraception is important and that it is for countless millions of people an essential part of life. If contraception has acceptance in theory and is permissible in our society—I believe that the majority of people in these islands wish it to be—it is important that it should be as effective as possible. If one accepts the concept of contraception and methods of contraception that may involve the termination of pregnancy in the case of an embryo that is only a few hours old, clearly there are plenty of arguments for allowing research into more effective ways of doing that.
However, if one shares the view of the Father of the House, that in the embryo of only a few hours there is a human being, one would obviously take a different view of such research. If one does not accept contraception of that sort, one will not accept the case in favour of improving its effectiveness. I suggest that that question has to do with the acceptability or otherwise of contraception rather than the need to undertake research or the need to prevent it.
4.30 pm
Research is also concerned with the care and treatment of eggs before fertilisation. It is essential that eggs fertilised in vitro are then allowed to undergo several cell divisions to check that their later development is unimpaired. I imagine that the hon. Member for Birkenhead will accept such research as valid.
Questions also arise in relation to the freezing of unfertilised eggs involving the creation of pre-embryos in the cause of the project. At present, only pre-embryos can be frozen successfully, so that pregnancies may result when they are thawed and replaced. It would often be more appropriate and convenient to store unfertilised eggs and then, following fertilisation, to replace them singly in the womb in subsequent cycles. This would avoid multiple pregnancies and their complications and would be more ethically acceptable to some.
However, before fertilisation, the chromosomes are attached to a fragile spindle, which tends to disintegrate on cooling and rewarming. Research is under way to find freezing and cooling methods that will not result in chromosome abnormalities. That research is also needed, and I imagine that the hon. Member for Birkenhead would consider it valid, because it would help those with difficulties in having children.
There appear to be three schools of thought: those of us who would accept research, including research into methods of contraception; those who want to restrict research, as I believe the hon. Member for Birkenhead intends; and those who do not want research at all and who want the amendment to be passed as a step in the direction of preventing research altogether. It is important that the House should have guidance on the interpretation and implications of the amendment should it become law. Whichever line of argument one follows, it is important that we should know what the amendment would do, and I hope that the Minister will give us a clear lead on that.

Dame Jill Knight: I support the amendment, for a reason that has not yet been touched upon, although I believe that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) referred to a farm. I am troubled about the economic value of an embryo. There is no question but that embryos could have a good marketable value. They are extremely valuable pieces of human tissue

—even if that is all some people consider them to be—and there is no end to the ingenuity of the human being when it comes to making money.
The better we understand the nature of the gates that we are opening, the better qualified we shall be to vote on the amendments and consider the implications of the Bill. Already, there is not the slightest doubt that some people outside this place want the doors to be opened. When it is seen that not much research can be carried out on such a tiny human being, they will push for a longer period of experimentation.
If that happens, people will be able to find out more and more about handicap and the other matters that the House has discussed during the passage of the Bill, and the further we go, the more valuable these tiny human beings will become. I am sorry to say this, but it is true and we should understand it: if we are not careful, we shall give an easy way of making money to those who may need it and to those who certainly want it.
Nowhere in the Bill is it forbidden to buy and sell embryos; indeed at this moment, the buying and selling of embryos is perfectly within the law. I thought that that was one of the matters which the Bill was designed to stop—the present legal trade in human flesh. If we permit the gratuitous creation of embryos in test tubes for no purpose other than research, I fear that we shall give many people a way of making a quick buck. We should understand how dangerous this research is, and no hon. Member should underestimate how valuable these tiny human beings could be on the open market.
The House should not create such a market, which it will unless it is careful, and unless it accepts the amendment.

Mr. David Alton: I am happy to support the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight). Most hon. Members would be repelled by the idea of a human embryo of the smallest of our species being used for exploitative or speculative purposes. I hope that the Secretary of State will comment on that when he replies to the debate.
I support the tone of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) in moving the amendment. As the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said, there will be differences in hon. Members' views. I freely admit that I am opposed to destructive experiments on human embryos. However valid research is said to be by those in favour of it and whatever achievements it might bring for humanity, it does not justify the destruction of the smallest of our species. We must be careful before sanctioning such experimentation.
That is why the Bill is restrictive. Although I do not much like it, I recognise that in some parts it at least attempts to be restrictive. It is therefore in keeping with the existing restrictions. If we say that a line is to be drawn at 14 days, beyond which experiments will not be permitted, it is perfectly in keeping for the hon. Member for Birkenhead to clarify an issue that Lord Jakobovits, the Chief Rabbi, raised in the other place—whether we should authorise the deliberate creation of spare, extra embryos merely for the purposes of experimentation.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon used the expression "pre-embryos". Depending upon which side of the argument they fall, hon. Members use different expressions. The word "pre-embryo" did not appear in the Warnock report, but it has been used as shorthand by


those who would rather not admit that it is the earliest form of life. There is no point, other than fertilisation, at which we can say, "That was me, that was the point from which I began." It is dangerous for Parliament to authorise any interference with that life from the moment of conception. That is why I believe that anything that we can do today to restrict the excesses of the Bill will be worth while.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon implied that hon. Members who hold a different view from his are luddite or antediluvian in their attitudes and against all research. I think that we know each other well enough to know that that is not the case. I am not opposed to research that does not involve the human subject as the guinea pig. But once one accepts that conception is the point from which life begins, it is impossible to countenance, in reason or logic, interference for any purposes, however supposedly justifiable people say they are.

Mr. Wigley: I did not intend to call the hon. Gentleman antediluvian, although we disagree on this matter. I was saying that there is a difference of opinion among the Father of the House, the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Birkenhead who moved the amendment. The hon. Member for Birkenhead accepts certain destructive research, whereas I suspect from his comments that the hon. Gentleman does not.

Mr. Alton: I am happy to accept that point. I support the hon. Member for Birkenhead because his amendment represents a restriction that I believe we would be wise to place in the Bill. However, the whole Bill is restrictive. I do not think that even the hon. Member for Caernarfon accepts that there should be destructive experiments or research beyond 14 days. The House has already said that there will be certain restrictions. It is therefore proper for the hon. Member for Birkenhead to argue his point and for me to support it, although I would prefer no destructive experiments to take place.

Mr. Frank Field: While I am grateful to any hon. Member who speaks in favour of my amendment, and even more to those who will vote for it, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it may be confusing for some hon. Members if those supporting the amendment argue in absolutist terms against research? We had and lost that debate in Committee, and it is not the point of my amendment.

Mr. Alton: That is absolutely true. The amendment attempts to isolate the issues. Although many of us felt that it was a tragedy when the House decided to allow experimentation in certain circumstances, today we have a chance to set to one side the emotionally loaded arguments about in vitro fertilisation and handicap. We have the opportunity to decide the specific question whether to create embryos merely for the purpose of destructive experimentation. Was that the wish of Parliament when it voted for something that did not give us the chance to vote for specific nuances or detail?

Mr. Kevin Barron: I was not on the Committee, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that in passing schedule 2, the Committee agreed—not many Conservative Members spoke against it—that licences could be granted

bringing about the creation of embryos in vitro"?
The hon. Gentleman says that the House has not agreed to that, but it has.

Mr. Alton: I accept that that is what the House voted for—I am sorry that it did. Now, I am glad to say, we have the chance to re-examine one aspect of that. At that early stage, we did not have the chance to distinguish between different forms of experimentation and research. However, we have that chance today. Before the hon. Gentleman suggests that all the arguments were put in Committee by all the hon. Members who take a pro-life view, let me remind him that, despite an assurance from the Leader of the House that the make-up of the Committee would be commensurate with the votes cast in the two-day debate, and although more than 30 per cent. of hon. Members supported the pro-life argument, only two of the 18 Committee members held pro-life views. Because the Committee was rigged—I use the word deliberately—I do not think that it was possible for all the points to be properly argued.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Gentleman said earlier that he wanted debate on the amendment to be stripped of the emotions that had divided hon. Members earlier. If he continues to speak as though "pro-life" meant his and no one else's point of view, his use of language is totally unjustified. He will not get my support if he pretends that he is being unemotional when in fact he is deliberately seeking to raise emotions and to distort the views of those who disagree with him.

Mr. Alton: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman takes that view. I can only express to the House my profound misgivings about what Parliament is being asked to authorise. The hon. Gentleman must make up his own mind. I want the debate to be on record, so that, when future generations consider the inconsistencies and illogicalities that now exist in this country, they will know that not everyone sanctioned what Parliament is now agreeing.
It is extremely distasteful that, in a country where people take violent action in opposing experiments on animals—I dissociate myself from such actions—we should sanction experiments on our own species. That cheapens human life, and treats it as no more than expendable raw material. That is at the heart of the Bill. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Birkenhead will not change all that, but he is trying—in line with the philosophy of the Bill—to incorporate reasonable safeguards and restrictions, so that excesses do not occur. I think that the majority of hon. Members would agree with that.

Sir Bernard Braine: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that more safeguards exist in regard to animal experimentation —I refer to the formation of the governing body, which is the licensing authority—than are provided by the Bill in its present form? Should that not be a matter of grave concern to the House?

Mr. Alton: I am certain that it should. If we debate the amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman concerning accountability to Parliament—an issue on which even my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) would surely support him—I hope that the House will agree that, when we authorise action that concerns all humankind,


those who carry out the experiments should be accountable to Parliament. Without incorporating those safeguards, and those that the hon. Member for Birkenhead so rationally and calmly proposed, how would that be possible? It is with some enthusiasm that I support the amendment.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) tabled the amendment. If he had read the report of the debate in another place, he would have realised why their Lordships rejected the proposal so strongly. It does not stand up at all.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) gave six medical reasons why the research is necessary; I wish to add a seventh. I have a note from the Medical Research Council concerning the micro-injection of sperm, which is of use in treating oligospermic men. Apparently, that treatment should not be carried out without research. I believe that two patients had the treatment in Italy because the licensing authority in this country refused to sanction the work without research. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Birkenhead would rather allow experiments on women than allow the research, but I believe that the research should be allowed.
Morally, the amendment does not stand up. The Rev. Professor Gordon Dunstan advanced the arguments very well. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) wants to rehearse all the old arguments. One is that, if we are to allow research, we should ration it to just a little research. That has no moral foundation. Another is that we should allow research on one class of embryos but not on another. That surely creates two types of human being. We should not discriminate.
My strongest argument against the amendment, however, is that, if it had been in existence earlier, we would never had had test tube babies and all the research that was carried out before the birth of Louise Brown by Steptoe and Edwards. They were creating embryos to see the conditions that were necessary for them to survive and grow in a test tube.
We should reject the amendment on moral as well as medical grounds. I am sorry that so far hon. Members who have spoken have failed to recognise that, because the arguments were put so well in the other place.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) suggested that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) had missed the point of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), but I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman himself missed the point. I am in favour of in vitro fertilisation and research on its behalf. I am opposed, however, to destructive research, which is the point behind the amendment.
The basic position of many hon. Members and the uneasy position of others who could not join us in the debate a few weeks ago is that nothing should be done to the embryo except for its own good. Even the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East almost conceded that it was a human life, although he quickly qualified his position. I put that point to the Secretary of State in the debate on Monday 23 April.

Mr. Wigley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Duffy: No.

Mr. Wigley: I should just like to clarify a point.

Mr. Duffy: I give way.

Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman said that the purpose of the amendment was to avoid destructive research. Is not it true, judging by the comments of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), that the mover of the amendment accepts destructive research for certain purposes? Therefore, that is not the point of the amendment.

Mr. Duffy: The hon. Gentleman's comments show why I was reluctant to give way. I put my point quietly and I hope that he will allow me to develop my argument. No one prevented him from developing his argument. We listened to him with great understanding and sympathy, as we always do.
One fertility centre that understands the ethical problems well is the Sheffield fertility centre. It stated:
Here the emphasis is on IVF the natural way, using the one egg normally produced. Drugs are used only in rare cases, when women do not ovulate.
The centre said that the latest results
show that one in four women who finally receive an embryo become pregnant, although not all run to term. There is no risk of multiple births, overstimulated ovaries, or spare embryos. With no drugs, the cost is considerably lower.
Those are not my words, but the words of the Sheffield fertility centre.
I understand that the university of Sheffield's infertility clinic at the Jessop hospital for women runs a natural cycle programme, with emphasis on developing a follicle without excessive stimulation so there is only one follicle and hence only one embryo to deal with. This does away with many of the ethical problems about "spare" embryos.
The right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) —the Father of the House—reminded us of a point that cannot be made too often. In earlier debates, those who hold a different view or who entertain the possibilities of research, but in a different way, got away with too much. The Father of the House reminded us that we can have all the benefits which even the pro-researchers claim they want without creating human embryos for use solely in destructive research. Human embryos were not, and are not, needed for developing or improving artificial fertilisation techniques. As with all medical research, all preliminary work can and should use non-human subjects. Human embryos are not needed for testing drugs. They have not been used in any recent discoveries in identifying and locating such diseases as Down's syndrome and cystic fibrosis. That point has been made in the House before, but it cannot be made too often.
There is no reason to suppose that future progress will depend on human embryos. There is nothing to be learnt from experiments on human embryos which cannot be discovered from non-human material. We must ceaselessly try to conquer genetic diseases without human embryo abuse. Parents at risk of having disabled children can be fully "protected" without any destructive research using human material. The production and the use of human beings for research which is not for their own benefit—treating them as things to be exploited as laboratory material, which is my basic point—are morally objectionable and unnecessary.
Having said all that, I am prepared to move in the direction proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead and to allow the creation of spare embryos which will die. The essential point is that embryos will not be created specifically for the purpose of destructive experimentation. Only spares will be used, and on that point I can move far enough to support amendment No. 6.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: I support the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and amendment No. 6, having voted against research. I share the view of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy)—although I support IVF, I am totally opposed to destructive research.
I shall set aside the matters with which the House has dealt. We must consider what is before us objectively, as one issue. The amendment would control the use of spare embryos for the purposes of research and nothing more. By limiting the amendment to "providing treatment services", the hon. Member for Birkenhead has provided a definition that will exclude many uses.
I share the view of the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), that when an embryo is fertilised, an individual is created. I do not subscribe to the view that there is a pre-embryo period of 14 days when, in effect, nothing exists but that, at the end of that period, there is an embryo capable of growing into a human being. The most offensive aspect of the Bill as it stands is that it means that embryos can be created, used and destroyed. That means destroying embryos which, if implanted in the mother's womb, would have grown into human beings. To destroy embryos is totally unacceptable to me, to my colleagues on both sides of the House and to those who share the view of the all-party pro-life group in the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) has expressed one of our reservations: there is no effective control in the Bill over the creation for the purpose of research of embryos which can be sold on. A trade could develop and embryos would, in effect, be sold on for any purpose or any use. Those who share my view regard that as totally unacceptable and an insult to humankind.

Mr. Robert Key: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hind: I should like to finish my argument and then I shall happily give way to my hon. Friend, who disagrees with my view. We can discuss this matter until we are blue in the face, but we will never agree on certain fundamental matters of principle that divide us.
The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston is valid. How would those who support the Bill in its entirety and oppose amendment No. 6 stop a trade in fertilised embryos? Where will it lead us? It will lead us down a slippery slope, down which many hon. Members will not logically want to go in any circumstances.

Mr. Key: I think that it will do a lot of good. The very reason that we are enacting this legislation is that there are no controls. We are seeking to give a framework of control. My hon. Friend says that there might be a trade so that embryos could be used for any purpose anywhere,

but he is utterly wrong. It is a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion. I hope that we can agree that the legislation is designed to overcome that problem.

5 pm

Mr. Hind: I take my hon. Friend's point. He may be interested to know that in 1986 I introduced a private Member's Bill to protect the unborn child for the very reason that he put forward: that there was no legislative protection for the unborn child at that time. It is something that I believe in. Many hon. Members share that view. I am pleased that my hon. Friend shares it. It all depends on how far it is taken. Hon. Members who support the amendment feel that it should go further.
Three major arguments are important to amendment No. 6. The first is that it will have no effect on in vitro fertilisation. That is very important. That has been put to me by parents who are infertile. Secondly, and most important, it will prevent the creation of embryos for research and ultimate destruction. Thirdly—to bury the argument put by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham)—it is my considered opinion that if this amendment had been in operation, the research that was carried out by Professor Steptoe and Professor Browne which led to the IVF implantation of fertilised embryos and consequently the birth of children would have continued. They were not thinking in terms other than the fact that they were providing children for infertile parents. Purely and simply, that was their aim. They took it no further. They were not thinking of research to further contraception which this amendment will prevent. That is a fundamental argument for the amendment.

Mr. Alton: I concur entirely with the hon. Gentleman, but is not it also the case that destructive experimentation is the cheapest and easiest way to proceed? Is not that the reason why many people favour that approach? The more complicated approach requires effort and time devoted by people such as Professor Lejeune to non-destructive forms of research.

Mr. Hind: We are at risk of going down the same route as in the previous debate. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who cited Professor Lejeune on Down's syndrome. Effective research has been carried out in the area of handicap without the use of embryos. A large amount of research can be carried out without using embryos.
The impression gained is that there is no other means of solving the problem of infertility other than the use of embryos. Many of us recognise that that is nonsense. Destructive research is something that I deplore and oppose. I fully support the amendment that stands in the name of the hon. Member for Birkenhead.

Mr. Dalyell: I put two factual questions to the Minister. The first concerns money. The Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), referred to the vast fortunes that can be made. He talked about a free-for-all. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) spoke about a quick buck and tiny human beings on the market. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) spoke about speculative purposes. Finally, the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) referred to the trade in embryos. Is not it a fact that that would be impossible under schedule 2 if the law were adhered to? Has the


Department any evidence of money changing hands in the purchase of embryos? Is there any evidence that this has ever happened?
The Minister said that nothing could be learnt from research on human material that cannot be learnt from "non-human material". My understanding from some biologists is that that is not factually so. On account of the organic nature of the experimentation, some experiments really have to be done on human material. I ask the Minister to put on record, albeit briefly, the technical advice that she has received from the Department.

Ms. Harriet Harman: I rise to oppose amendment No. 6 and to comment on amendment No. 11.
I support the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), who referred to the weakness of the moral arguments in support of amendment No. 6. It is illogical to support embryo research on a basis that would restrict the use of embryos specifically created for research so that one could not use embryos specifically created for research. The IVF programme would never have gone ahead had we not had the creation of embryos specifically for embryo research. It is also illogical to distinguish between embryos created for research and those which are the by-product of treatment.
If one takes on board, as this House has done, the importance of the objectives that the research has, and if we are prepared, under very specific safeguards, to use embryos for the purpose of research, a distinction thereafter has to be drawn between those created specifically for research and those created as a by-product for treatment. There is, however, no moral, compelling basis for the distinction.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) invited the House to consider what the amendment actually means. How restrictive is it? I welcome the fact that the Minister of State has been invited to interpret the amendment. However, that is not good enough. If the amendment is not clear to the hon. Gentleman or to me, how can we include in the Bill an amendment which might or might not severely restrict the availability of embryos for research?

Mr. Wigley: There has been a difference of interpretation in the speeches tonight. A number of hon. Members have said that the amendment would allow only spare embryos to be used for research. That was not the implication of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) when he responded to the earlier intervention. That will need to be clarified, or votes will be cast on different bases.

Ms. Harman: My point is that it cannot be clarified, because the amendment is confusing, and therefore defective. We cannot leave it to be clarified by the Minister while it remains unclear on the face of the Bill and has to be sorted out in court. The House has a responsibility to make clear laws. Ministerial interpretations of what a Bill means are useful, but they are not the end of the matter, and they will not do. Therefore, I shall listen with interest to what the Minister says, but we cannot have a "We'll see you in court" attitude.

Mr. Frank Field: I hope to deal with the substance of my hon. Friend's argument if the House allows me to respond to the points raised on the amendment. However, we should not omit to note that a lawyer is saying that it

is bad news if the Acts that we pass are taken to the courts for interpretation. I thought that that was the most fundamental part of our legal system.

Ms. Harman: I do not want Parliament to pass a Bill which contains an ambiguity which creates work for lawyers and anxiety for researchers. We have to produce clear legislation and reduce the scope for ambiguity. Assuming that the Bill reads as it says, there is a scientific problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who moved the amendment, asked which authorities considered that there would be a problem for research if the amendment were accepted. The list is obvious: it includes the reproductive biology unit at Edinburgh, the assisted conception unit at King's College in my constituency, the Medical Research Council, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and Robert Winston. The consensus of medical opinion among those involved in the research is that the amendment would prevent research which needs to go ahead.
I am not suggesting that medical opinion is unanimous. We can all find someone who takes a different view. However, I hope that I am not misleading the House by saying that the overwhelming balance of medical and scientific opinion among those who are involved in the research is that the amendment would create a terrible restriction and frustrate the will of the House as expressed in its support for clause 11.

Mr. Thurnham: Does the hon. Lady agree that the licensing authority would allow research to go ahead only if it considered that that research was necessary? Therefore, it is arrogant of people to assume that research is not necessary, when the people who examine it so carefully will allow it to go ahead only if they consider that it is necessary.

Ms. Harman: I absolutely agree.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Harman: I shall, but I do not want to give way too often, because I do not want to take up too much time.

Mrs. Winterton: Is it not true that the way in which the licensing authority is constituted will affect the number of licences and the reason for those licences being given? Does the hon. Lady agree that we are prepared to protect animals from research more than human beings? I served on the Committee which considered the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 which provides much greater protection for animals.

Ms. Harman: I remind the hon. Lady of the safeguards in the Bill. She seems to have no confidence in those safeguards or in the statutory licensing authority.

Mrs. Winterton: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Harman: I shall not give way. The statutory licensing authority has a legal frame of reference that we have agreed, saying that research will not be allowed unless it cannot be carried out except on embryos. The statutory licensing authority has to satisfy itself that any research cannot be carried out on animal tissue and has to have one of several specific objectives. Therefore, to say, "They would, wouldn't they?" of the statutory licensing authority is unsatisfactory.
Let me identify the specific problems that the amendment would cause to research that should be allowed. Unless embryos are created for the purpose of research, research which centres on the process of fertilisation will not continue. Many chromosomal defects arise around the time of fertilisation. We need to learn more about the conditions in which that fertilisation takes place that lead to those chromosomal defects, so that we can understand how diet or other factors may be able to prevent chromosomal abnormalities arising on fertilisation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) said that research on embryos would not help prevent Down's syndrome, but some researchers take the view that research could be undertaken on the prevention of Down's syndrome if the process of fertilisation were better understood. Understanding the process of fertilisation is important in understanding subsequent miscarriage.

Mr. Alton: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Harman: I shall not give way again, as the hon. Gentleman has made his speech. I might relent later, but I shall press on for the moment.
Reference has been made to micro-injection, whereby the sperm is injected into the egg because it cannot fertilise the egg in the woman or in a test tube. The voluntary licensing authority will not allow the implantation of embryos fertilised in that way, because it wants to be sure through more research that the embryo is not damaged by being created by micro-injection. To avoid couples becoming involved in this procedure, there should be more research to find out how those embryos develop in the laboratory before they can be implanted to develop in the woman. Therefore, embryos need to be created for research into the important problem of male sub-fertility.
The right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) talked about the exciting new opportunities that are opened up by the ability to freeze and store eggs, making it unnecessary to store and freeze embryos. However, we will not know whether the eggs that are frozen and stored will develop normally unless they are used to create embryos.
Polar body biopsy research has already been mentioned. We need to improve pre-implantation diagnosis, and the idea that one cell could be taken from the embryo to see whether it has a genetic defect before putting it back in the womb provides exciting opportunities. However, we do not want embryos which have been damaged by the process of polar body biopsy to be put back in the womb. We owe it to the women who are undergoing the treatment and to their husbands to make sure that we get it right so that they are not used as experiments.
The hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) suggested that the scientific community were opposed to the amendment because they were lazy and were looking for short cuts. That does scientists an injustice. I am sure that scientists are not looking for an easy solution or are not prepared to carry out research conscientiously. We should accept the argument that important research will not be able to continue if it is limited to spare embryos.
Once again, I remind the House of the safeguards in the Bill. The idea that there could be a farm for embryos has been put forward, but the statutory licensing authority will have to give licences for research. It will be an offence if research goes ahead and embryos are created without the approval, monitoring and supervision of the statutory licensing authority. Are we to believe that we are creating by statute a licensing authority which will turn a blind eye to embryology farming? That is absurd scaremongering, and I urge people to rule it out.

Miss Ann Winterton: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Harman: No.
There will also be supervision by Members of Parliament. We will be able to ask the Secretary of State for Health questions about what is going on—[Interruption.] If my colleagues will allow me, I should like to move on.
I want now to consider contraception, because there has not been much focus on amendment No. 11 so far in our debate. I seriously urge the House to reject amendment No. 11, because that would permit embryo research for the purposes of investigating miscarriages, for treating infertility and to investigate congenital diseases and genetic defects, but there cannot be embryo research into contraception.
What are women to make of this House if we say that contraception is not sufficiently important to be included in the list permitting embryo research? What will they think if embryo research designed to find a contraceptive vaccine is to be stopped? I was very sad to read the report of the debate in the other place, in which the Chief Rabbi said that he was not concerned with the morality of contraception or even against contraception: he simply did not believe that it was a sufficiently urgent consideration.
The Chief Rabbi might not think that contraception is a sufficiently urgent consideration. However, he should ask his wife or his daughters. Before hon. Members in this House vote to exclude the possibility of research to find a contraceptive vaccine, they should consult their wives and daughters as well. They should listen to women outside this place. The battle for safe, effective and convenient contraception has not yet been won. The shadow of the fear of unwanted pregnancy has existed through the ages, and it remains a problem in this country.
Hon. Members such as my hon. Friends the Members for Birkenhead and for Attercliffe who are concerned about the abortion rate should be aware that, if we make contraception easier, we will prevent a high abortion rate. The idea that hon. Members should vote for an amendment tonight that undermines progress on contraception while tomorrow those same hon. Members will ask the House to restrict abortion is absolutely wrong.

Mr. Alton: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Harman: It will be a mistake, but I will give way.

Mr. Alton: I hope from the hon. Lady's point of view that it will be a mistake. She referred to the contradictions. Does she not accept that it is also a contradiction that people like her who are arguing tonight that we should authorise destructive experiments for the purpose of curing infertility will, by a cruel paradox, be those same people tomorrow who will be arguing in favour of abortion? One in five pregnancies is ended through abortion, and 184,000 children are aborted each year.


Surely the paradox is that many families in this country would dearly love to adopt those children and provide homes for them. Is that not a paradox in the hon. Lady's argument?

Ms. Harman: We will argue about that tomorrow; it would not be in order for me to pursue the hon. Gentleman's point now.
Some hon. Members may believe that it is an attractive argument to stop embryo research on contraception because that is different from a woman's desire to have a baby. A woman's desire not to have a baby might be considered less important than a woman's desire to have a healthy baby. A view is still lurking around the House that contraception is somehow a third-world issue and that it is no longer an issue for women in this country. The idea is that contraception is all about population control in the third world. That is not the case. It is an issue now and it is an issue here. Unfortunately, it is not as much of an issue as it should be in the other place or in this House.
I hope that the House will reject amendment No. 11, which would prevent embryo research to develop contraception. I hope also that the House will reject amendment No. 6, which would restrict research to spare embryos. In this House, we have agreed that the objectives of the research are important. We have agreed that we want to see the problems of contraception solved. We have agreed that we want to see an end to the misery of miscarriage. We have talked about the suffering of infertile couples and about the importance of research to help them. We have talked also about the devastation that hits families when they have a child with a serious genetic abnormality. We have agreed that all those issues are important and that we want to do something about them. Let us not vote for an amendment which prevents us from achieving those objectives.

Mrs Ann Winterton: I shall speak to my amendments Nos. 10 and 11 and support amendment No. 6 tabled by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field).
I believe that the creation of human life with its destruction pre-planned is the most repugnant aspect of the Bill. I believe that human life must never be used solely as a means to an end. In vitro fertilisation produces surplus embryos which cannot be transferred to a woman's womb and those spare embryos, although created with the possibility of continuing life, in practice cannot be given that chance. To use them for research beneficial to other human beings does them no additional injury. If we accept the production of possibly "spare" embryos, we should accept their use in research. However, that is no reason to create embryos specifically for research. That approach allows a degree of consensus between the opposing sides of the argument. It allows the benefits of embryo research without the need to cheapen human life in the way that opponents fear might happen.
A law that alienates a large section of the community and offends their deeply held beliefs is a bad law even if the majority in Parliament are in favour of it. I believe that amendment No. 6 would minimise opposition and alienation. The production of embryos purely for research means the extraction of eggs from women purely for research. That is not a safe procedure and it can even result in death.
Experimentation on embryos necessarily means experimentation on women. The Helsinki declaration requires:
In the purely scientific application of medical research carried out on a human being, it is the duty of the doctor to remain the protector of the life and health of that person on whom biomedical research is being carried out … The investigator or investigating team should discontinue the research if in his/her or their judgement it may, if continued, be harmful to the individual.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Lady said that the process could result in death. Has she any examples of that happening?

Mrs. Winterton: I have a sheaf of papers from which I could quote at length, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept what I have said. There is much scientific data which I will give to him later if he likes.

Dame Jill Knight: The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) might care to look at the reports of the debates in Committee. He will find that I gave full details of 11 women who had died as a result of that procedure. All the details can be found in the Committee stage reports.

Mrs. Winterton: I am most grateful for that intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) who served on the Standing Committee and who is much more knowledgeable about the point to which I had referred. My hon. Friend made a most helpful intervention.
We must also worry about women being placed under undue pressure to donate eggs for research in order, for example, to receive treatment or to receive treatment faster or at a reduced cost. The "spares" only restriction would prevent that.
Of course that would place an additional restriction on research. That is inevitable. Indeed, the whole purpose of the Bill is to place restrictions on research. The 14-day limit, for example, is a restriction that we have included for ethical reasons, but we accept that it might prevent some useful work from taking place.
I should have liked to ask the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) how she thinks that research carried out on embryos under 14 days would be policed. I believe that it will be impossible to police such research and that we shall merely have to take on trust what the scientists are doing. I hope that the House will recognise the validity of that point.
5.30 pm
Embryo research would still be operating under fewer restraints than most medical research. Research on adults must either be therapeutic or on corpses, with the appropriate consent.

Mr. William Cash: My hon. Friend has used the word "therapeutic". Those of us who have delved into the question of ethical guidelines in the past four years or so since this issue first arose are aware that "therapeutic" is defined by doctors and scientists in their self-regulating capacity. Does my hon. Friend accept that that raises a serious and difficult question because the Bill is effectively handing over that responsibility to people who have an inbuilt desire to induce the difficulties that we are discussing, and that there is no opportunity—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Briefly please.

Mr. Cash: —for Parliament or anyone else to intervene thereafter?

Mrs. Winterton: My hon. Friend has made a valid point, which the House would do well to note.
Embryo researchers would also be allowed a restricted class of live human embryos to test destructively. I am confident that most useful work could proceed under that constraint.
We have already heard the argument that IVF could never have developed without creating the embryos for the initial research. Steptoe and Edwards began creating embryos long before they had the facility to transfer them to the womb. At that time, they were more concerned with studying embryos than with infertility. Clinically, it would have been far more responsible to attempt GIFT before IVF.
Destructive research is the cheap and easy way to proceed. Non-destructive research is far more complicated and time consuming, but most people consider that it is more appropriate for work involving human beings. The fact that early IVF workers chose to proceed in a particular way does not prove that it could not have been done differently. Every other major medical advance in the 20th century has been achieved without destructive research. In any case, there is little doubt that current IVF research could proceed without deliberately creating embryos for the purpose. It would also be impossible or unethical to develop techniques of egg freezing or egg testing without using some of those eggs to create embryos that would not be transferred to the womb in order to make sure that the embryos developed normally.
If that were true, it would have been impossible to develop sperm freezing, which was done long before IVF, and frozen sperm was not tested in this way. Nevertheless, children created from frozen sperm grow up perfectly normal. Frozen eggs can be tested for damage without being fertilised. In any case, 50 per cent. of eggs produced by IVF techniques are known to be abnormal. Damaged eggs simply fail to produce viable embryos. There is only a miniscule risk of producing an abnormal child. Extensive testing using animal eggs would allow these techniques to be verified safe. This is how all other new medical techniques are tested.
It has also been argued that it would be impossible or unethical to create new forms of contraception without testing them in vitro, and embryos would be created in some cases. It would also be necessary to see if embryos accidentally created were abnormal. If that were true, it would have been impossible to develop any of the modern contraceptives now in use. How was the pill developed? There is no reason why new forms of contraception cannot be developed without embryo experiments. Drugs to block fertilisation would need clinical trials in any case. This cannot be bypassed by in vitro research.
Responsible scientists develop new techniques in human medicine, first, by extensive testing on animals—as I said earlier, there is far more control over experimentation on animals than would be the case for human embryos—and, secondly, by controlled clinical trials with human beings. They do not use an intermediate stage of destructive testing on human beings. IVF scientists wish to dispense with that in favour of destructive testing on human embryos.
The hon. Member for Peckham spoke at some length against amendment No. 10, which places a specific prohibition on
the administration of a substance to an embryo for the purpose of ascertaining the properties of that substance in relation to the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of disease".
In other words, the amendment seeks to prevent the use of human embryos for the testing of drugs.
Destructive research on human embryos has been agreed to on the basis that it will be used for the most urgent therapeutic needs. We wish to ensure that it is not used for a much wider range of less urgent purposes for which we do not feel it can be right to use human embryos. Page 64 of the Warnock report stated:
We do not want to see a situation in which human embryos are frivolously or unnecessarily used in research.
Much has been said about the alleviation of infertility and the application of embryo research to genetic diseases. We are not attempting to restrict that, but we do not want a situation in which it becomes commonplace for pharmaceutical companies to test drugs on human embryos because they are cheaper than rats and mice. Surely that would not be right. Anyone who knows anything about experimentation on animals knows how costly such experimentation is, not only financially, but, for example, in terms of the numbers of staff who need to be employed.
It is pertinent to the debate to note that RU486, the French abortion drug, has already been tested on human embryos. It might also be relevant to note that Bourne hall, the first IVF clinic, which was much hailed, has been bought by a pharmaceutical company. Perhaps that piece of news will cause hon. Members to make some connections.
Amendment No. 11 seeks to prevent the use of human embryos in research projects to develop more effective techniques of contraception. As the hon. Member for Peckham said, it was moved originally on Report in the other place by the Chief Rabbi. I hasten to add that the amendment is not based on any opposition in principle to contraception, any more than the similar amendment relating to drugs testing is based on an opposition to medical drugs. However, I do not feel that the development of contraception is the sort of work for which human embryos should be used.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: Does my hon. Friend agree that one major argument against the destructive use of embryos for contraceptive purposes is that there are so many alternatives for research on contraception and such research does not offer anything unique? Unlike the argument of possible long-term future benefits for people suffering from cystic fibrosis, this case offers nothing unique—nothing that is not offered by other research.

Mrs. Winterton: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is true that all present forms of contraception have been developed successfully without the use of the human embryo. That being so, how necessary is the use of human embryos for these purposes?
During a debate in the other place on 6 March the Chief Rabbi, Lord Jakobovits, said:
It would be both ironic and morally offensive to destroy the most basic substance of life for research to prevent the generation of life."—[Official Report, House of Lords; 6 March 1990; Vol. 516, c. 1061.]


I agree with those sentiments. That view is borne out by those who took part in a Gallup poll which was conducted between 13 and 18 September. The results suggested that public opinion supported the Chief Rabbi's view because 57 per cent. said that they would not support the use of human embryos to develop new techniques of contraception, with only 32 per cent. supporting that use. The remaining 11 per cent. did not know.
I do not wish to give the impression that I am knocking pharmaceutical companies or accusing them of wanting to do anything unethical. I shall quote from a document of the Council of Europe's parliamentary assembly of 4 March 1986. It is the product of a joint hearing of the legal affairs committee, the sub-committee on bio-ethics of the committee on social and health questions, and the committee on science and technology. During an evidence session a contribution was made by Professor Hess of Ciba-Geigy, which is an excellent pharmaceutical company. Its headquarters happen to be based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). My hon. Friend attended its opening recently and I know precisely how good a local company it is. Professor Hess, in representing the company, had much to say in answer to various questions. I shall quote what he said because I think that his remarks are pertinent to the arguments that are being advanced. He said:
In my own company, scientific experiments with human embryos are not performed. To my knowledge, the same applies to the other main pharmaceutical firms in Western Europe. Human embryos and tissues are neither used for the production of medicaments, nor is their use an issue of industrial biotechnology.
He continued by saying in summary that
the use of human embryos or fetuses is no purpose of industry.
He later said:
I cannot easily imagine a situation of, say, drug-induced damage in which human embryos could be expected to yield information which is not obtained from animal models. The architecture and development potency of early embryos of most mammalian species are very similar.
In the next paragraph, he added:
I see no need or justification for the production and subsequent use of human embryos for drug research and development.
That says it all.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The House will be aware that, when the Bill was considered in Committee of the whole House, we had the opportunity to vote on the basic principle of whether human embryos up to 14 days should be used for research for certain specified purposes, under the strict control of a statutory licensing authority. I agree with the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that he is not seeking to deny the clear wish of the House, which was signalled by a clear majority, that research on human embryos should be permitted. The hon. Gentleman's amendment No. 6 seeks to ensure that embryos should be created only for treatment purposes. I recognise that, although many of those who have contributed to the debate are opposed to embryo research, they have sought to concentrate on the issues that arise from the hon. Gentleman's amendment and others rather than to re-run an earlier and lengthier debate.
If embryos can be created only for treatment purposes, a restriction will be placed on the embryos that are available for research. That would mean that various

research activities on th embryo would not be possible. I refer the hon. Member for Birkenhead to the definition of treatment in clause 2(1). It is defined as
medical, surgical or obstetric services. … for the purpose of assisting women to carry children.
In those terms, the women who chose to donate their eggs when being sterilised, for example, could not possibly come within the terms of providing embryos in the course of treatment. The amendment would mean that many embryos and gametes would no longer be available. Does that matter, and what would the implications be?
5.45 pm
The concern that has been expressed is that, if embryos could not be specifically created for research purposes, there would be a danger that the quality of embryos being used for research would deteriorate. There would he a scarcity of embryos. Rather than the present situation, where the embryos that look the healthiest and are flourishing and developing best are liable to be implanted in the woman, there would be a danger that the boundary would move. It is clear that for treatment purposes and for following on from the implications of research, it is important to have high-quality, properly supervised treatment. It has been made clear also that there are areas of research that could not be permitted if amendment No. 6 were accepted.

Mr. Dalyell: I hope that the Minister will forgive me for being sceptical. I wish to clear up an issue of fact that relates to remarks made by the hon. Members for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) and for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight). On 8 May, the hon. Member for Edgbaston said:
We already have details of dangers on the record: at least 11 women have died during the course of IVF programmes."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B; 8 May 1990, c. 57]
Does the Department have any knowledge of those 11 cases? It is a matter of considerable importance to the debate whether the hon. Lady's claim can be substantiated.

Mrs. Bottomley: We have no information about such cases within the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) provided information but, as I have said, we have no information about such cases within this country. When these techniques are practised under proper supervision there is no undue risk to the woman. We are talking of fairly recent techniques, and one of the purposes of establishing a licensing authority is to ensure that best practice is properly supervised and that proper guidance is available.

Mr. Frank Field: I take the Minister back to the phrase which she used when talking about the decline in the quality of embryos in the furtherance of treatment. Even on the hon. Lady's reading of my amendment, I am not seeking any restrictions on the creation of embryos for the furtherance of treatment. I could not understand the Minister's argument. Even if the amendment were agreed to, further embryos would be created until we had embryos of the quality required for the furtherance of treatment.

Mrs. Bottomley: I accept the hon. Gentleman's argument. The point is well put by Professor the Rev. Gordon Dunstan and others. It is that if there is a scarcity of embryos there may be a tendency to want to use


embryos for treatment purposes in all possible circumstances, whereas if there is not such a scarcity that is less likely to be the position.

Mr. Field: I thank the Minister for giving way. I hope that I shall not have to intervene again. I shall try to avoid doing so.
The Minister talks about a possible scarcity of embryos. Experience in my constituency suggests that scarcity arises because those women who wish to follow treatment for their infertility are unable to do so because of budgetary restrictions. If we had more resources, there would be more women seeking an end to their infertility, and that would result in the greater creation of embryos. The circle would be squared for the Minister. Is that not the answer?

Mrs. Bottomley: I do not intend to follow the hon. Gentleman in that line of argument. The Bill is about establishing a framework of law properly to control and regulate relatively new areas of treatment and research. That should be done before discussing national health service resources. I am standing next to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health, who has managed to achieve record levels for the health service. He has had unprecedented success in that area. Far be it from me to add to the debate on resources.

Dame Jill Knight: I noted how carefully my hon. Friend chose her words when she said that there was no such evidence "in this country". She will agree that in Committee I gave her the information that 11 women had died in other countries. I find it appalling that Opposition Members seek to keep that under wraps—I certainly absolve the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) from that charge. It is important for all of us that it is made clear when there is a danger connected with a certain health procedure. It does not matter whether the women have died here or elsewhere; they have died, and there is no doubt about it.

Mrs. Bottomley: Our primary concern must be for the welfare of women in this country, which has a health service to which unprecedented resources are allocated and in which we can have confidence in the quality and standard of care. Obviously, it is primarily in that area that we shall make a judgment. My hon. Friend's point must be considered, but hon. Members would be right to give more weight to the experience of this country.

Mr. Raison: It is important to know whether, in those 11 cases, death occurred as a result of the extraction of ovaries for research purposes or for treatment. I suspect that the reason for their extraction is immaterial. Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem with the debate is that it is meant to be about a particular category, but that those who support amendment No. 6 are against all research on embryos and are using this as a device to advance their view?

Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. Although the hon. Member for Birkenhead and others acknowledge their deep reservations about, and in some cases hostility to, the principle of research, during the debate they have tried to distinguish between that principle and the amendments that we are debating.
The key question is whether, with appropriate consents, embryos could continue to be created specifically for research purposes, provided that the research establishments were properly licensed under the Bill, or whether the Bill should provide that the research should be carried out only on spare embryos from IVF treatment programmes, which would otherwise be left to perish. That is a matter for the judgment of hon. Members.

Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend knows of my deep opposition to these proposals, which I have expressed for at least four years. Am I right in thinking that she has considered the dangers of patenting the procedures involved in research in this area, and the vast sums involved in the commercial exploitation of the procedures?

Mrs. Bottomley: This may be the moment for me to lay to rest a myth about great commercial exploitation and the vast resources available. Great sums do not change hands. There is no suggestion of any money changing hands. Clause 12(e) makes it clear that no benefit or payment may be made for embryos or gametes without the authorisation of the licensing authority. It imposes clear legislative controls in this area. Nor is there any evidence that drug companies have any particular interest in embryo research. Nor do they use embryo research on animals for testing drugs because, before 14 days are up, there is little validation or assistance that they can get from it. It is important to lay to rest that alarmist myth which is being perpetrated, because it is unhelpful to the debate to have such comments passed.
The Bill permits research licences to be granted for five main purposes: promoting advances in the treatment of infertility, increasing knowledge about the causes of congenital disease, increasing knowledge about the causes of miscarriage, developing more effective techniques of contraception and developing methods of detecting the presence of gene and chromosome abnormalities in embryos before implantation.
In her amendment, my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) seeks to remove the ability to provide research for developing effective techniques of contraception. That point was ably answered by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman). Many hon. Members may take the view that there is as yet no thoroughly satisfactory and effective method of contraception. Population questions worldwide make it only too clear that, if an effective method of contraception without undue or long-term risks to women became available, it might well be a force for good. I recognise that some hon. Members would be implacably opposed to any form of contraception but they do not speak for most hon. Members or for most of the country. Work on the development of a vaccine is being undertaken. It must involve embryo research in order to establish its effectiveness. I find it difficult to come to terms with my hon. Friend's amendment.
My right hon. Friend the Father of the House spoke to amendment No. 10 about drugs. As I made it clear in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), it is not the case that drug companies make particular use of embryos. The Bill provides a power to prohibit the use of embryos, were they to be used in a way in which the authority and the Government found unsatisfactory. Clause 3(3)(c) gives the Secretary of State


a power to make regulations, which will be subject to an affirmative resolution to prohibit such activities, were the need to arise.

Mr. Wigley: Earlier, I asked whether the Minister had Government legal advice on the interpretation of amendment No. 6. If it were passed, could only spare embryos be used for research? Clearly, hon. Members interpret amendment No. 6 differently and it is important for us to understand it.

Mrs. Bottomley: I have made it clear that that is the case. I told the House the definition of "treatment", under which such embryos will be created, and that only spare embryos would be available.

Mr. Field: Is the distinction not slightly different? Did the Minister not say that the number of embryos available for research would be smaller? She did not comment on erecting gates against forms of treatment.

Mrs. Bottomley: I hope that I made it clear that embryos would be made available only in the course of treatment, and I gave the definition of treatment. Embryos which are not necessary for treatment could still be used for research purposes. The hon. Gentleman made it clear —this is also my interpretation of his amendment—that the amendment would not prohibit, but would greatly limit, research.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and others have suggested that the amendment would mean that research in some areas could not continue. There would be areas in which research could continue on those spare embryos, but it would not be possible to undertake research in the areas identified by the hon. Member for Birkenhead, such as contraceptive vaccines, research influencing the process of fertilisation, research on some origins of chromosome disorders, research on freezing and thawing unfertilised eggs, research on freezing and thawing eggs in the process of fertilisation, research on the fertilisation of eggs by a single sperm and the best culture medium for fertilisation. All those forms of research would require that an embryo was subsequently created and allowed to develop in order to ensure that such research had no long-term adverse effect. It would be unsatisfactory to undertake such research and then use the gamete to conceive a child. Clearly, we could not satisfy ourselves as to the outcome of that research in any other way.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: On Second Reading, I asked my hon. Friend if she could say how many embryos had been used in research up to that date. How many embryos are expected to be required to allow the treatments that she has outlined?

6 pm

Mrs. Bottomley: Would my hon. Friend repeat the beginning of his question?

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: How many embryos does my hon. Friend think will be required annually to meet the needs that she has just outlined?

Mrs. Bottomley: Clearly, it is impossible to give a forecast of the kind that my hon. Friend seeks. The Bill is about establishing a clear framework of law, a licensing authority, to regulate such activities properly. We need proper arrangements for informed consent for the donors

of gametes and embryos. We must also ensure that the activities take place in strictly licensed premises that are properly inspected and that there are proper safeguards.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Surely somebody has some idea of how many embryos are being used in embryo research, which has been going on for four, nearly five, years. I cannot believe that that figure is unknown to the Department.

Mrs. Bottomley: It is impossible to provide such information for my hon. Friend. A great many authoritative sources and individuals are involved in the treatment of disease and the promotion of well-being who are profoundly committed to the development of embryo research. That was the view of the House when the issue was debated and a conclusion reached some time ago.

Dame Jill Knight: rose—

Mrs. Bottomley: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me, but I must make some headway.

Dame Jill Knight: I have an important question. Earlier, the Minister referred to clause 12(e), under which she said that it would be impossible for money to change hands. Surely that clause makes it impossible for money to change hands if it is authorised by directions. What form of authorisation would be given and in what circumstances would it be given?

Mrs. Bottomley: We debated that issue at some length in Committee, when it was made clear that the authority would be able to issue directions. The interim authority has recently made it clear that it is possible for those who donate their eggs for research or treatment purposes, depending on their wishes, to be sterilised. It has been made clear that no inducement is envisaged. If my hon. Friend consults the Hansard report of our Committee, she will see that we made it clear that the only type of benefit considered for those involved in such treatment were expenses. There is no intention of starting a market in embryos or eggs, or any such alarmist talk.
Government amendment No. 48 covers a subject similar to that in amendment No. 9, but it has a different conclusion. It arises from a point raised with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State by the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and the Bishop of Leeds, that schedule 2 contains a clear contradiction between the last two lines of paragraph 3(2) and the earlier suggestion in the schedule that the authority could extend the areas in which research would be justified. It is clear from amendment No. 9, and it is our view, that the last two lines of paragraph 3(2) are too widely drawn.

Mr. Vivian Bendall: Does Government amendment No. 48 mean that the list cannot be extended without reference to Parliament and the Secretary of State? It is important that the last points should not open things up in a way that the House would not want.

Mrs. Bottomley: That is precisely the position. If my hon. Friend consults the Bill, he will notice that, in schedule 2, paragraph (1)(g) states that a licence may authorise
other practices as may be specified in, or determined in accordance with, regulations.
However, paragraph 3(2)(e) refers to other purposes


of increasing knowledge about the creation and development of embryos and enabling such knowledge to be applied.
Government amendment No. 48 seeks to ensure that, should further purposes be envisaged apart from those that I have already specified where research would be justified, they could be introduced only by affirmative resolution, following a debate in the House.
For example, at present, one of the purposes is congenital disease. A time may come when research into embryos could greatly assist the treatment of other diseases, such as cancer. If amendment No. 9 were passed, that would be impossible without recourse to primary legislation. I hope that the House will agree that, should any extension of the areas in which research could legitimately be undertaken be envisaged, that should be subject to affirmative resolution, as outlined in Government amendment No. 48.
This is a new and important Bill that sets up an authority that will police activities, have powers of entry and ensure that research is undertaken in a carefully supervised and regulatory way. I hope that I have clarified some of the amendments and explained why Government amendment No. 48 is particularly important to give additional strength to, and to safeguard, the Bill.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) asked whether the Government would make available the notes on the Government new clauses likely to be discussed after 7 pm. I hope that it will be helpful to say that we are putting notes on new clauses in the Vote Office and the Library about now, so that those interested in the debates after 7 pm can begin their studies.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: I made my position on the Bill and its attendant factors pretty clear on Second Reading. I shall not repeat my views, except to draw the same conclusion now as I did then.
One fact that has been noticeable during this debate and the previous two is that when debating such issues we try to mobilise other people's opinions. It is right to do so because we need to inform ourselves. But the more we listen to the debates, the more we mobilise those opinions that happen to coincide with our own beliefs and prejudices, or whatever one chooses to call them. I accept that we listen to scientific opinions. But, as lay people, we make value judgments, based on scientific opinions, that are governed by our own views. It is akin to the definition of freedom of the press as being the freedom to publish news that coincides with the prejudices of the proprietor of the newspaper.
Two matters are crucial. It was said earlier in the debate that moral arguments did not stand up because those who opposed experimentation had conceded the argument by supporting the amendment. That is a fallacious argument although it was put responsibly, unlike some of the accusations about some of us who were described as anachronistic, mediaevalist, misogynistic and jesuitical. When the opinions in the North of Ireland are coupled in that way, it gives many of us reason for amusement.
Is it right to end the life of a human being, which is how I regard an embryo? If it is right, all the other arguments about the scientific facts that we have rightly been

marshalling for so long should be taken into account. If it is wrong to take the life of a human being, it is doubly wrong to create life so that we can end it.
No matter how scientific or valid the argument or how eminent the person who advances it, and no matter what interpretation is placed on research by scientists, the House will decide not on the basis of the scientific arguments, but on the simple question whether it is right to take the life of a human being. In terms of the amendment, is it wrong—I believe that it is—to create embryos so that research can be carried out on them and because of which they will be destroyed?
By its very nature, research has to go beyond the bounds of constraint. That is what it is all about. Research that is carried out within clearly defined limits will not be successful. There is no doubt that people involved in research will automatically always look for more scope. In terms of the legislation that means two things. The first is that, rightly from their professional point of view but wrongly from the point of view of the legislation, people will naturally look for more embryos upon which to experiment. Secondly, it is, therefore, a matter not of dealing with spare embryos but of the creation of embryos for a specific purpose. As I said on Second Reading, that will inevitably lead to clear demands for an extension of the 14-day rule. As research develops, the need for more time and more subjects will develop and at some time in the future the Government will have to take a decision about an extension of the 14-day rule.
I hope that I shall be forgiven for widening the debate. It is wrong to kill a human being, but it is even more wrong to create human beings so that we can kill them for research. If such research is allowed, we will not be able to restrain it. Future generations will look back at this legislation and say that it was the beginning of a problem which will have become enormous in moral, ethical and scientific terms.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) made an extremely important speech. I support the amendment because, while it is one thing to use spare embryos that may result from a treatment such as IVF, which is a life-giving treatment, it is another to create embryos simply for research.
I asked the Minister how many embryos were used annually because I did not know the figure and hoped that she would. As the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh has said, when dealing with embryos we are dealing with human beings in the making. It is appalling that we do not know how many human beings in the making are being destroyed each year in embryo research.
To reduce human embryos to a lesser level than the white mice used in laboratories suggests that we no longer place any ethical or moral value on life, although I may be told that at the embryo stage life is so diminutive that we do not need to place on it the value that we place on a grown human being.
Following my question to the Minister, I was told that approximately 5,000 embryos are being used every year in this country. I understand that that figure comes from Oxford university. If it is correct, it means that approximately 25,000 embryos have been used in the past five years. How soon will it be before we are using healthy embryos in research to cure illnesses in fewer people than


those healthy embryos would represent if they became human beings in their own right? Can we justify putting certain congenital conditions above the possibility of those embryos growing into normal human beings with all the potential that is in a human being for his or her life and what he or she may or may not do with that life?
We have to decide where our values lie in this matter. We must limit the amount of embryo research that can be carried out rather than allow science to demand the sacrifice of embryos in the name of progress without recognising that we are creating an imbalance between what we are doing with the embryos, which we know will be destroyed, and the cures that they might bring to all the illnesses and handicaps that we are told about.
The Minister will know that at no time during this debate or on Second Reading has anyone been able to establish that embryo research has produced any of the curses that are always held out to us like an illusion or a mirage. No one can yet say categorically that those cures will be found through this research. In spite of that, we are prepared to say that the human embryo is less than life simply to enable scientists to continue with work that they have decided they would like to do. That is all with the intention of increasing the knowledge of human beings and their disorders, but no one has yet been able to tell the House that the 5,000 embryos which will be sacrificed this year—and how many more next year? —will have died to any purpose whatever.
The amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) is right. He is saying that if, as a result of treatment such as IVF, which brings a positive result, there are spare embryos, we may use them, but beyond that we should not go. I whole-heartedly support him.

Mr. Raison: I have not previously participated in the debates on the Bill, but, like all hon. Members, I have thought hard about the fundamental question whether it is right to conduct research on embryos. After much thought, I came to support the view that we should conduct such research.
Amendment No. 6 is a refinement of that question. I have been struck by the fact that hon. Members who support the amendment seem to be fundamentally basing their arguments on the fact that they are against all research on embryos. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said that that was not the point. He clearly said that he was merely arguing a specific case about a particular way of creating embryos, but the fact remains —I stand to be corrected—that every hon. Member who has supported amendment No. 6 has done so on the basis that they are against all research on embryos. If anyone wishes to tell me that I am wrong, I shall give way.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: If the research was not destructive I would support it.

Mr. Raison: That is as may be, but it does not answer my point, which was that those hon. Members who support amendment No. 6 are, without exception, against any research on embryos. However, that is not what the debate is about. It is about whether we can legitimately draw distinctions between research in which embryos have been created for use in a treatment, and research in which the embryo has been created specifically for that research. How and why the embryos have been created should not dominate our decisions.
The argument has been set out with more elegance and clarity than I could summon by Canon Professor Dunstan in a paper from the Medical Research Council which has been widely circulated. I hope that the House witl forgive me if I quote a sentence or two from it. He says:
if the future Statutory Licensing Authority is to be permitted to grant licences for research as well as for treatment and storage, it must be because a strong moral justification is perceived, for example, the recognition that the research will contribute to the alleviation of infertility and to a decrease in the number of handicapped babies born.
Once it has been granted that such purposes and potential benefits are of sufficient moral worth to justify using the early human conceptus for research, no moral distinction seems sustainable between those conceptuses that are 'spare' from a therapeutic attempt, and those that are 'specially created', ie generated as part of a research project. What may he justified for one may also be justified for the other.
To my mind, that exactly sums up the position. Either we believe that research on embryos is permissible, or we do not. The purpose for which embryos are created is secondary and irrelevant. Therefore, although I have great respect for what hon. Members on both sides of the House have said in support of amendment No. 6, after listening carefully to their arguments, they appear to be against all research on embryos, and I think that the House will recognise that.

Sir Bernard Braine: I did not intervene on the first occasion that my right hon. Friend made that charge, but it will be within the recollection of the House that, when supporting the amendment, I said no such thing. I made it absolutely clear that spare embryos might well be used for research because they were destined to die anyway. Also, I made it absolutely clear that to create embryos for the purpose of research—this lies at the heart of all the arguments advanced by hon. Members who support the amendment—which would end in their destruction is totally unacceptable, because the embryo is the beginning of human life.

Mr. Raison: I understand and respect the stance of my right hon. Friend, the Father of the House, but it does not alter what I said.

Sir Bernard Braine: Of course it does.

Mr. Raison: My understanding is that those hon. Members who support amendment No. 6 are, without exception, against all research on embryos.

Mr. David Wilshire: Hon. Members will be greatly relieved to hear that I do not have the slightest intention of repeating the speech that I made when we considered the Bill in Committee on the Floor of the House, or of repeating all that I said in Standing Committee.
One basic point has been overlooked in the debate. It is perfectly possible to be anti-abuse and pro-life while supporting all forms of research. The two are not incompatible.
I am a little weary—and I suspect that one or two other hon. Members are too—of listening to the anti-research lobby seeking to take the moral high ground, and demanding that we somehow or other prove that research is absolutely essential so that they can tolerate it as a necessary evil. I find that unacceptable and unpalatable.
I have no doubt that research is both good and moral in principle. I am sure that all hon. Members present will accept that abuse can happen, but I have no doubt that the


Bill will take care of that without the need for any more refinements. I reject the claim, which I heard earlier, that I should feel disgusted at the notion of deliberately creating embryos and then using them for research. I do not feel in the least bit disgusted at that because I realise that there is a fundamental difference between a potential person and an actual human being. I am clear in my mind that research does not take place on human beings, and I say that not for the convenience of scientists, but because I believe that it is so, and it should be on the record that some hon. Members believe that.
Research should take the moral high ground because, in principle, research can help all mankind and it can help a huge number of future individuals. We should be proud of that. We should vote in favour of making that help available to all our constituents. Therefore, I urge the House not to entertain the amendments, but to leave the Bill as it stands. An overwhelming majority of hon. Members previously voted for it as it stands

Mr. Frank Field: I must pick up the point made by the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison). For once, I cross swords with him, and I do so to caution the House about the wisdom of putting one's sticky fingers into other people's souls and trying to suggest what their motives might be.
I have changed my position in the debate and shall briefly explain that change. In the debates on embryo research and abortion I held an absolutist position. I hoped that the objectives that I could achieve, and that I wished to advance, could be furthered by that stance. In Committee, the House seemed to make two resounding comments about my stance First, while there may be minor changes to the Abortion Act 1967, this House—and probably any House in my lifetime—will not make major changes to it, and certainly not wrecking changes. Secondly, the House unequivocally supported the newer subject of embryo research.
I could have continued to maintain my old absolutist stance, and to feel that by pushing that line I might be able to sway the debate in the House, or I could desert that position and take a more compromised one—muckier, less clear and non-absolutist—in an attempt to sway the House's decision. Therefore, I have deserted my previous stance. If we have a debate and a Division on abortion tomorrow, although I previously believed that the rules should be tightened up, I should vote for an amendment to make abortion easier under 12 weeks, and I should want that firmly linked to urgent reinforcement and care for family planning, which we have not seen. We would not be able to guarantee that tomorrow because the House does not often allow us to decide matters in such a sensible way. I have fundamentally changed my position.
Similarly, I made clear my position on embryo research in the Division in the previous debate. To my heart's content I could make a speech similar to that which I made then as if we had not voted then. I might go out of the Chamber feeling better for it, but I doubt that I should influence the way in which many hon. Members voted. Perhaps I should change that statement. I may influence many hon. Members, because they would be so annoyed at listening to a speech that had nothing to do with the amendment that they would vote in the opposite Lobby.
6.30 pm
By tabling the amendment, I have signified in the most public way that a Member of Parliament can that I have changed my stance, not because my gut feeling is that I was wrong to vote as I did but because, while I respect those who take the absolutist position, I want to influence the decision of the House. Therefore, I tabled the amendment and sought support for it. As I wished to maximise support for the amendment I refused to allow other hon. Members to attach other measures to it, such as a statement that we believe in research but want to qualify the provision and specify that research should not be allowed on contraception. If hon. Members wish to include such a limit they must vote for it in another amendment. It is not part of amendment No. 6 or the consequential amendment.
I intended to pick up many of the points made in the debate, but I sense that the House is not in the mood for it. I shall stay on the ground that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) called the moral high ground. Everyone wants to occupy the moral high ground—and why not?

Ms. Harman: It is full up.

Mr. Field: There might even be room for my hon. Friend, so I invite her to join us on it.
The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham)—tonight I have his constituency right—presented his argument. For once I could not follow it. It takes more than to quote the research of Professor Rev. Dunstan, say that there is a high moral argument and make the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) give a powerful grunt of "Hear, hear" to persuade us that that the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East has a good enough argument. It is a good debating point in the House, but surely the House wishes to be persuaded by the arguments, not by the trick of a good theatregoer.
The argument of the hon. Member for Spelthorne takes us back to that of the right hon. Member for Aylesbury. It may be that many of those who support the amendment hold the absolutist position that I held. So what? Surely the House will be convinced by the weight of the argument, not by guilt by association. Hon. Members will not say, "They are the people whom we voted against last time, so we had better vote against them this time."
I can bring my reasons for moving the amendment to a head by centring on the distinction presented by the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East and—we thank the right hon. Member for Aylesbury for drawing our attention to it—the argument used by Professor Rev. Dunstan. It is legitimate for Professor Rev. Dunstan to argue that his view is logical and his moral position correct. That does not make every other position immoral, amoral or non-moral. We must put our various positions before the House and let the House choose.
One distinction is fundamental and crucial to the debate. There is all the difference in the world between creating an embryo, which some of us would say is life but others would say has the potential for life, in an attempt to allow couples who are infertile to have children and using the embryos that are not required for other purposes, and saying that we are so mesmerised by the wonders of science and the blank cheque that we shall give to science that scientific activity itself is the moral stance while the creation of embryos is a secondary consideration. To


create embryos for research simply to destroy them is different from using embryos to further fertility and using spare embryos that would otherwise die. The distinction seems so clear and powerful that I am surprised that some hon. Members cannot see or support it.
The amendment does not seek to limit research. The number of experiments that can be carried out may be limited because there will be a limited number of embryos, but as the Minister would not or could not answer the question put to her by the hon. Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) about how many embryos will be needed, none of us knows whether that is a real possibility.
The amendment seeks, to use a phrase from another debate, to ring-fence the research.

Mr. Barron: It seeks to restrict it.

Mr. Field: No, it does not seek to restrict research. The amendment contains no restriction on research. There may be a restriction on the number of experiments that can be carried out as a result of the number of embryos available, but amendment No. 6 and its consequential amendment contain no such restriction. Other amendments such as that on contraception would restrict research, but that is not what this amendment is about.

Mr. Barron: I disagree on that. It is likely that if the amendment is accepted more embryos will be created when people receive what my hon. Friend would term direct treatment so that research can continue. The amendment will do nothing except alter the Bill, which has the support of a large majority in the House.

Mr. Field: That is the point of this stage of the Bill. That is why we have parliamentary procedures that allow us to amend legislation. We have heard two arguments tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) argues that we should not table amendments to the Bill because we would change the Bill. But that is why we have this opportunity to table amendments. The other argument is the Pontius Pilate view that we should not give instructions to outside bodies, in this case the licensing authority. We are the supreme body that lays down guidelines about what should be done. The licensing authority will be the receptive organisation. While those arguments are good debating points, they are separate from and inferior to the major issue that we must decide.
I hope that I have convinced at least some hon. Members that by tabling the amendment I do not take the absolutist position that I held previously. If I have the chance, I shall vote accordingly tomorrow. I accept that there is a clear difference of opinion on whether embryos should be created for research or whether only spare embryos not used for fertilisation should be used. I beg the House to believe that in tabling the amendment I did not wish to restrict the nature of research that can be carried out. If the House wishes to place restrictions on research it must vote on other amendments.
Tonight, we are not deciding to undo the substance of the debates on Second Reading a few weeks ago, which received overwhelming support. Tonight, we are deciding a different issue.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 208, Noes 246.

Division No. 237]
[6.39 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Fox, Sir Marcus


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Freeman, Roger


Allason, Rupert
French, Douglas


Alton, David
Galloway, George


Amess, David
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Amos, Alan
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Anderson, Donald
Graham, Thomas


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Ashby, David
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Atkins, Robert
Gregory, Conal


Atkinson, David
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Ground, Patrick


Baldry, Tony
Grylls, Michael


Batiste, Spencer
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hague, William


Beggs, Roy
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Beith, A. J.
Hanley, Jeremy


Bell, Stuart
Hardy, Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Benyon, W.
Harris, David


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hawkins, Christopher


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hayward, Robert


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Bowis, John
Hill, James


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hind, Kenneth


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Holt, Richard


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Brazier, Julian
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Bright, Graham
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Buckley, George J.
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Budgen, Nicholas
Hunter, Andrew


Burns, Simon
Irving, Sir Charles


Burt, Alistair
Janman, Tim


Butler, Chris
Jessel, Toby


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Canavan, Dennis
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Carttiss, Michael
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Cash, William
Kennedy, Charles


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Kilfedder, James


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Chope, Christopher
Kirkhope, Timothy


Churchill, Mr
Knapman, Roger


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Latham, Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Lawrence, Ivan


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Conway, Derek
Lightbown, David


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Lilley, Peter


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cormack, Patrick
McFall, John


Cryer, Bob
Maclennan, Robert


Cummings, John
McLoughlin, Patrick


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
McNamara, Kevin


Day, Stephen
Maginnis, Ken


Devlin, Tim
Malins, Humfrey


Dixon, Don
Mans, Keith


Douglas, Dick
Marlow, Tony


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Dover, Den
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Dunn, Bob
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Moate, Roger


Durant, Tony
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Evennett, David
Monro, Sir Hector


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Fallon, Michael
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Favell, Tony
Mudd, David


Fearn, Ronald
Murphy, Paul


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Neubert, Michael


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Nicholls, Patrick


Fookes, Dame Janet
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Norris, Steve


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon






O'Brien, William
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Stokes, Sir John


Paice, James
Sumberg, David


Paisley, Rev Ian
Summerson, Hugo


Parry, Robert
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Pawsey, James
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Pendry, Tom
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Pike, Peter L.
Thorne, Neil


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thornton, Malcolm


Powell, William (Corby)
Tracey, Richard


Price, Sir David
Trimble, David


Redmond, Martin
Trippier, David


Reid, Dr John
Twinn, Dr Ian


Robertson, George
Walden, George


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Watts, John


Rowlands, Ted
Wells, Bowen


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Whitney, Ray


Shelton, Sir William
Widdecombe, Ann


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Skeet, Sir Trevor



Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Speed, Keith
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy and


Stanbrook, Ivor
Mrs. Ann Winterton.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cousins, Jim


Adley, Robert
Cox, Tom


Allen, Graham
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Arbuthnot, James
Curry, David


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dalyell, Tam


Armstrong, Hilary
Darling, Alistair


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Ashton, Joe
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dewar, Donald


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Dobson, Frank


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Doran, Frank


Barron, Kevin
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Beckett, Margaret
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Blunkett, David
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Boswell, Tim
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Farr, Sir John


Boyes, Roland
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Bradley, Keith
Fishburn, John Dudley


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fisher, Mark


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Flannery, Martin


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Flynn, Paul


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Forman, Nigel


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Forth, Eric


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Foster, Derek


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Foulkes, George


Buck, Sir Antony
Franks, Cecil


Caborn, Richard
Fraser, John


Callaghan, Jim
Gale, Roger


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Gardiner, George


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
George, Bruce


Carr, Michael
Gill, Christopher


Carrington, Matthew
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Cartwright, John
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Chapman, Sydney
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Goodlad, Alastair


Clay, Bob
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Clelland, David
Grocott, Bruce


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Cohen, Harry
Hannam, John


Coleman, Donald
Harman, Ms Harriet


Colvin, Michael
Haselhurst, Alan


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Haynes, Frank


Corbyn, Jeremy
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Couchman, James
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)





Hinchliffe, David
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Hood, Jimmy
Page, Richard


Hordern, Sir Peter
Patchett, Terry


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Patnick, Irvine


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Prescott, John


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Primarolo, Dawn


Howells, Geraint
Quin, Ms Joyce


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Radice, Giles


Hoyle, Doug
Raffan, Keith


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Illsley, Eric
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Ingram, Adam
Richardson, Jo


Irvine, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Jack, Michael
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jackson, Robert
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Rogers, Allan


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Rooker, Jeff


Kirkwood, Archy
Rowe, Andrew


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Ruddock, Joan


Knowles, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Knox, David
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lambie, David
Sedgemore, Brian


Leadbitter, Ted
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Sheerman, Barry


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lewis, Terry
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Litherland, Robert
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Livingstone, Ken
Short, Clare


Livsey, Richard
Skinner, Dennis


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Loyden, Eddie
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Snape, Peter


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Soley, Clive


McAllion, John
Spearing, Nigel


McCrindle, Robert
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Squire, Robin


McKelvey, William
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Maclean, David
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McLeish, Henry
Steinberg, Gerry


Madden, Max
Stevens, Lewis


Madel, David
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Marek, Dr John
Strang, Gavin


Marland, Paul
Straw, Jack


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Martlew, Eric
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Mates, Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Maxton, John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Meacher, Michael
Trotter, Neville


Meale, Alan
Turner, Dennis


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wallace, James


Michael, Alun
Walley, Joan


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Miller, Sir Hal
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Miscampbell, Norman
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Wheeler, Sir John


Mitchell, Sir David
Wiggin, Jerry


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wigley, Dafydd


Moore, Rt Hon John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Morley, Elliot
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Wilshire, David


Morrison, Sir Charles
Winnick, David


Moss, Malcolm
Worthington, Tony


Mowlam, Marjorie
Yeo, Tim


Mullin, Chris
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Needham, Richard



Nellist, Dave
Tellers for the Noes:


Nelson, Anthony
Mrs. Maria Fyfe and


Oppenheim, Phillip
Mr. Robert Key.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 4

PROHIBITION IN CONNECTION WITH GAMETES

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I beg to move amendment No. 39, in page 3, line 10, at end insert —
'(2A) No person shall place sperm and eggs in a woman in any circumstances specified in regulations except in pursuance of a licence.
(2B) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (2A) above may provide that, in relation to licences only to place sperm and eggs in a woman in such circumstances, sections 12 to 22 of this Act shall have effect with such modifications as may be specified in the regulations.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this, it will be convenient to take the following: Amendment No. 23, in page 3, line 10, at end insert —
'(2A) No person shall provide gamete intra fallopian transfer treatment services unless and until —

(a) notification of such provision has been given to the Authority, and
(b) a written undertaking has been given to provide annually to the Authority such information concerning the provision of the treatment services as the Authority may specify in directions.'.

Amendment No. 24, in schedule 2, page 29, line 22, at
end insert —
'(6) In the case of gamete intra fallopian transfer, if it appears to the Authority that there is cause for concern about the provision of treatment services in any centre, the Authority may require that an application be made for that centre to be licensed, and may further require that no new patients be treated at that centre until a licence has been granted.'.

Government amendments Nos. 41 and 51.

Mrs. Bottomley: In Committee, considerable attention was given to gamete intra-fallopian transfer. Government amendments Nos. 39, 41 and 51 seek to provide redress for those who have been concerned about the technique. The statutory control of any medical technique is an unprecedented measure and, following the debates in the other place—[interruption.]

Dame Jill Knight: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am so sorry, but I am directly behind my hon. Friend and I cannot hear a word that she is saying.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady is quite right. I am directly in front of the Minister, but I can hardly hear her either. Please may we have order while the Minister speaks to the amendment.

Mrs. Bottomley: Government amendments Nos. 39, 41 and 51 cover a matter that caused considerable concern in Committee.
The Bill is primarily concerned to control fertility treatments that consist of the creation of an embryo outside the body and those which involve donated gametes or embryos. However, the technique of gamete intra-fallopian transfer and a number of other treatments that involve the use of super-ovulatory drugs caused concern in Committee, and reservations have been expressed by many in the field. We took advice from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and others, which felt strongly that it was not right for the full controls of the Bill to cover GIFT.
The amendments seek to ensure that powers are available so that we can bring forward regulations—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) would take his seat. Mrs. Bottomley.

Mrs. Bottomley: The amendments would ensure that it was possible for us to bring forward regulations, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, to ensure that the placing of sperm and eggs in a woman fell within the licensing system should the Government consider that necessary in future.

Miss Widdecombe: I am anxious to ask my hon. Friend for one clear assurance before she concludes her remarks. Can we please be assured that, if GIFT is to be brought within the control of the Bill, those who do not wish to practise other methods and who only wish to practise GIFT will not, under any circumstances, be discriminated against for that reason?

Mrs. Bottomley: That is certainly the case. As my hon. Friend will know, one of the purposes of the counselling techniques is to ensure that people are properly advised in other techniques that will not come within the purview of the authority.
In addition to introducing a regulation-making power to bring GIFT within the control of the authority if necessary, we have tabled Government amendment No. 51, which would ensure that, should any activity take place in breach of those regulations, it would then be an offence.
Government amendment No. 41 would ensure that the authority could give guidance in its code of practice on the use of any technique involving the placing of sperm and eggs in women, whether or not the technique is covered by the Bill by virtue of regulations.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) suggested that we might exert pressure on the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to ensure that it provided further guidance and encouragement to its members—which had already expressed views on this subject—to ensure that they adhered strictly to the guidelines that are already available from the licensing authorities. I wrote to the president, Sir George Pinker, and took up the Committee's concerns. He replied to me by making it clear that the royal college continues to think it right that GIFT should not be subject to the full regulation procedure under the Bill. It is more than happy to write to its members to reinforce the advice given by the authority on counselling, the use of super-ovulatory drugs, the number of embryos or eggs to be transferred and other matters relating to the practice of GIFT. The advantage of our amendments is that it could also cover other techniques such as post-peritoneal oocyte and sperm tranfer. I hope that hon. Members will feel that that satisfies the understandable concern and that we are taking the necessary steps, and that they will support the Government amendments.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: The Minister will recall Labour Members raising their concerns about these matters because of their anxiety about the risks to the mother and to any resulting children. We are glad to accept the Minister's assurance—

It being Seven o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [2 April] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Amendment agreed to.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am now required to put the Question on any amendment moved by a member of the Government to the end of schedule 2. Will the Secretary of State make clear the amendments that he is moving?

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I propose to move amendments Nos. 14, 8, 48 and 10. I wish to make it clear that, to facilitate a vote, there will be a free vote for Conservative Members on the non-Government amendments.

Madam Deputy Speaker: then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions on amendments, moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at Seven o'clock.

Schedule I

THE AUTHORITY: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

Amendment proposed: No. 14, in page 26, line 21, after `informed' insert
'by the views of persons having wide knowledge or experience in the fields of law, social work, philosophy and religion as well as medicine or science and'. —[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 205, Noes 236.

Division No. 238]
[7.01 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Alton, David
Conway, Derek


Amess, David
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Amos, Alan
Cormack, Patrick


Anderson, Donald
Cryer, Bob


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Cummings, John


Atkins, Robert
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Beggs, Roy
Day, Stephen


Beith, A. J.
Dixon, Don


Bell, Stuart
Douglas, Dick


Bellingham, Henry
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bendall, Vivian
Dover, Den


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Dunn, Bob


Benyon, W.
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Evennett, David


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Fallon, Michael


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Favell, Tony


Bowis, John
Fearn, Ronald


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Fookes, Dame Janet


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brazier, Julian
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Bright, Graham
Fox, Sir Marcus


Buck, Sir Antony
Freeman, Roger


Buckley, George J.
French, Douglas


Budgen, Nicholas
Galloway, George


Burns, Simon
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Burt, Alistair
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Butler, Chris
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Butterfill, John
Gow, Ian


Canavan, Dennis
Graham, Thomas


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Cash, William
Gregory, Conal


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Grocott, Bruce


Chope, Christopher
Ground, Patrick


Churchill, Mr
Grylls, Michael


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hague, William





Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
O'Brien, William


Hardy, Peter
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Page, Richard


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Paice, James


Harris, David
Paisley, Rev Ian


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Parry, Robert


Hayward, Robert
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hill, James
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hind, Kenneth
Pawsey, James


Holt, Richard
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hordern, Sir Peter
Pendry, Tom


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Price, Sir David


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Reid, Dr John


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hunter, Andrew
Robertson, George


Irving, Sir Charles
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Jack, Michael
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Janman, Tim
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Jessel, Toby
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Shelton, Sir William


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Kennedy, Charles
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Kilfedder, James
Speed, Keith


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Kirkwood, Archy
Stanbrook, Ivor


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Latham, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lawrence, Ivan
Stokes, Sir John


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Sumberg, David


Ligntbown, David
Summerson, Hugo


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McCrea, Rev William
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


McFall, John
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Maclennan, Robert
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Thorne, Neil


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Thornton, Malcolm


McNamara, Kevin
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Maginnis, Ken
Tracey, Richard


Malins, Humfrey
Trimble, David


Marek, Dr John
Trippier, David


Marlow, Tony
Twinn, Dr Ian


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Moate, Roger
Wallace, James


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Waller, Gary


Monro, Sir Hector
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Watts, John


Moore, Rt Hon John
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Whitney, Ray


Moss, Malcolm
Widdecombe, Ann


Mudd, David
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Murphy, Paul
Worthington, Tony


Neubert, Michael



Nicholls, Patrick
Tellers for the Ayes:


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Mrs. Ann Winterton and Mr. A. E. P. Duffy.


Norris, Steve



Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Blunkett, David


Adley, Robert
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Allason, Rupert
Boswell, Tim


Allen, Graham
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Boyes, Roland


Arbuthnot, James
Bradley, Keith


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Armstrong, Hilary
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Ashby, David
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Baldry, Tony
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Caborn, Richard


Barron, Kevin
Callaghan, Jim


Beckett, Margaret
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)






Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Illsley, Eric


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Ingram, Adam


Carr, Michael
Irvine, Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Jackson, Robert


Cartwright, John
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Chapman, Sydney
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Knapman, Roger


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushclitte)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Clay, Bob
Knowles, Michael


Clelland, David
Knox, David


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lambie, David


Cohen, Harry
Leadbitter, Ted


Coleman, Donald
Lee, John (Pendle)


Colvin, Michael
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Lewis, Terry


Corbyn, Jeremy
Litherland, Robert


Couchman, James
Livingstone, Ken


Cousins, Jim
Livsey, Richard


Cox, Tom
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Loyden, Eddie


Curry, David
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Dalyell, Tam
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Darling, Alistair
McAllion, John


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McCrindle, Robert


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Dobson, Frank
McKelvey, William


Doran, Frank
Maclean, David


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
McLeish, Henry


Durant, Tony
Madden, Max


Dykes, Hugh
Madel, David


Eggar, Tim
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Marland, Paul


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Martlew, Eric


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Mates, Michael


Farr, Sir John
Maxton, John


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Meacher, Michael


Fishburn, John Dudley
Meale, Alan


Fisher, Mark
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Flannery, Martin
Michael, Alun


Flynn, Paul
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Miller, Sir Hal


Forman, Nigel
Miscampbell, Norman


Forth, Eric
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Foster, Derek
Mitchell, Sir David


Foulkes, George
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Franks, Cecil
Morley, Elliot


Fraser, John
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Gale, Roger
Morrison, Sir Charles


Gardiner, George
Mowlam, Marjorie


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Mullin, Chris


George, Bruce
Needham, Richard


Gill, Christopher
Nellist, Dave


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Nelson, Anthony


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Golding, Mrs Llin
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Goodlad, Alastair
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Patchett, Terry


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Patnick, Irvine


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Pike, Peter L.


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hannam, John
Prescott, John


Harman, Ms Harriet
Primarolo, Dawn


Haselhurst, Alan
Quin, Ms Joyce


Haynes, Frank
Radice, Giles


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Raffan, Keith


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hinchliffe, David
Rathbone, Tim


Hood, Jimmy
Redmond, Martin


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Richardson, Jo


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Riddick, Graham


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Howells. Geraint
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Rogers, Allan


Hoyle, Doug
Rowe, Andrew


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Ruddock, Joan


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Ryder, Richard





Sackville, Hon Tom
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Sedgemore, Brian
Thurnham, Peter


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Townend, John (Bridlington,


Sheerman, Barry
Trotter, Neville


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Turner, Dennis


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Walley, Joan


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Short, Clare
Wareing, Robert N.


Skinner, Dennis
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wells, Bowen


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Snape, Peter
Wheeler, Sir John


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wiggin, Jerry


Soley, Clive
Wigley, Dafydd


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Squire, Robin
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Wilshire, David


Steinberg, Gerry
Winnick, David


Stevens, Lewis
Yeo, Tim


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Strang, Gavin



Straw, Jack
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Mrs. Maria Fyfe and Mr. Robert Key.


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule 2

ACTIVITIES FOR WHICH LICENCES MAY BE GRANTED

Amendment proposed: No. 8, in page 29, line. 41, leave out paragraph (d).—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 167, Noes 271.

Division No. 239]
[7.13 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Conway, Derek


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Alton, David
Cormack, Patrick


Amess, David
Cummings, John


Amos, Alan
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Atkins, Robert
Day, Stephen


Atkinson, David
Devlin, Tim


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Dixon, Don


Baldry, Tony
Douglas, Dick


Batiste, Spencer
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dover, Den


Beggs, Roy
Dunn, Bob


Beith, A. J.
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bell, Stuart
Evennett, David


Bellingham, Henry
Fallon, Michael


Bendall, Vivian
Favell, Tony


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Fearn, Ronald


Benyon, W.
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fookes, Dame Janet


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bowis, John
Freeman, Roger


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
French, Douglas


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gale, Roger


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Galloway, George


Brazier, Julian
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bright, Graham
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Budgen, Nicholas
Gregory, Conal


Burns, Simon
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Burt, Alistair
Grylls, Michael


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Canavan, Dennis
Hague, William


Cash, William
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Harris, David


Chope, Christopher
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Hayward, Robert


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hill, James






Hind, Kenneth
Paisley, Rev Ian


Holt, Richard
Parry, Robert


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Pawsey, James


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Irving, Sir Charles
Pendry, Tom


Janman, Tim
Porter, David (Waveney)


Jessel, Toby
Powell, William (Corby)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Price, Sir David


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Reid, Dr John


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Kilfedder, James
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Latham, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lawrence, Ivan
Shelton, Sir William


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lightbown, David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Speed, Keith


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Stanbrook, Ivor


McCrea, Rev William
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


McFall, John
Stokes, Sir John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sumberg, David


McNamara, Kevin
Summerson, Hugo


Maginnis, Ken
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Malins, Humfrey
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Marlow, Tony
Thorne, Neil


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thornton, Malcolm


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Tracey, Richard


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Trimble, David


Moate, Roger
Trippier, David


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Twinn, Dr Ian


Monro, Sir Hector
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Mudd, David
Watts, John


Murphy, Paul
Whitney, Ray


Neubert. Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Nicholls, Patrick
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Nicholson, David (Taunton)



Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Tellers for the Ayes:


O'Brien, William
Mrs. Ann Winterton and Mr. A. E. P. Duffy.


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley



Paice, James



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Butler, Chris


Adley, Robert
Butterfill, John


Allason, Rupert
Callaghan, Jim


Allen, Graham
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Arbuthnot, James
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Armstrong, Hilary
Carr, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carrington, Matthew


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cartwright, John


Ashton, Joe
Chapman, Sydney


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Barron, Kevin
Clay, Bob


Beckett, Margaret
Clelland, David


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Blunkett, David
Cohen, Harry


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Coleman, Donald


Boswell, Tim
Colvin, Michael


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Boyes, Roland
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bradley, Keith
Couchman, James


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Cousins, Jim


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Cox, Tom


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Cryer, Bob


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Curry, David


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Dalyell, Tam


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Darling, Alistair


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Buck, Sir Antony
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Buckley, George J.
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)





Dewar, Donald
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dobson, Frank
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Doran, Frank
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Durant, Tony
Lewis, Terry


Dykes, Hugh
Litherland, Robert


Eggar, Tim
Livingstone, Ken


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Livsey, Richard


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Loyden, Eddie


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Farr, Sir John
McAllion, John


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Fishburn, John Dudley
McKelvey, William


Fisher, Mark
Maclean, David


Flannery, Martin
McLeish, Henry


Flynn, Paul
Maclennan, Robert


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Madden, Max


Forman, Nigel
Madel, David


Forth, Eric
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Foster, Derek
Marek, Dr John


Foulkes, George
Marland, Paul


Franks, Cecil
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Fraser, John
Martlew, Eric


Fyfe, Maria
Mates, Michael


Gardiner, George
Maxton, John


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Meacher, Michael


Gill, Christopher
Meale, Alan


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Michael, Alun


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Miller, Sir Hal


Goodlad, Alastair
Miscampbell, Norman


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mitchell, Sir David


Graham, Thomas
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Moore, Rt Hon John


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morley, Elliot


Grocott, Bruce
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hanley, Jeremy
Moss, Malcolm


Hannam, John
Mullin, Chris


Hardy, Peter
Needham, Richard


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Nellist, Dave


Harman, Ms Harriet
Nelson, Anthony


Haselhurst, Alan
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Haynes, Frank
Norris, Steve


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Page, Richard


Hinchliffe, David
Patchett, Terry


Hood, Jimmy
Patnick, Irvine


Hordern, Sir Peter
Pike, Peter L.


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Prescott, John


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Primarolo, Dawn


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Radice, Giles


Howells, Geraint
Raffan, Keith


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hoyle, Doug
Rathbone, Tim


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Redmond, Martin


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Richardson, Jo


Illsley, Eric
Riddick, Graham


Ingram, Adam
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Irvine, Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Jack, Michael
Rogers, Allan


Jackson, Robert
Rowe, Andrew


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Ruddock, Joan


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Ryder, Richard


Kennedy, Charles
Sackville, Hon Tom


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Sedgemore, Brian


Kirkwood, Archy
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Knowles, Michael
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Knox, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lambie, David
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Leadbitter, Ted
Short, Clare


Lee, John (Pendle)
Skinner, Dennis






Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Trotter, Neville


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Turner, Dennis


Snape, Peter
Wallace, James


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Walley, Joan


Soley, Clive
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Spearing, Nigel
Wareing, Robert N.


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wells, Bowen


Squire, Robin
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Wheeler, Sir John


Steen, Anthony
Wiggin, Jerry


Steinberg, Gerry
Wigley, Dafydd


Stevens, Lewis
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Strang, Gavin
Wilshire, David


Straw, Jack
Winnick, David


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Worthington, Tony


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis



Thurnham, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody and Mr. Robert Key.


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: No. 48, in page 29, line 44, leave out from 'or' to 'such' in line 45 and insert
`for such other purposes as may be specified in regulations.
(2A) Purposes may only be so specified with a view to the authorisation of projects of research which increase knowledge about the creation and development of embryos, or about disease, or enable.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Amendment proposed: No. 10, in page 30, line 1, after
`authorise,' insert—
'(a) the administration of a substance to an embryo for the purpose of ascertaining the properties of that substance in relation to the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of disease, or
(b) '.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 167, Noes 254.

Division No. 240]
[7.26 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Cash, William


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Alton, David
Chope, Christopher


Amess, David
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Amos, Alan
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Anderson, Donald
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Conway, Derek


Atkins, Robert
Cormack, Patrick


Atkinson, David
Cummings, John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Batiste, Spencer
Day, Stephen


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dixon, Don


Beggs, Roy
Douglas, Dick


Beith, A. J.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bell, Stuart
Dover, Den


Bellingham, Henry
Dunn, Bob


Bendall, Vivian
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Evennett, David


Benyon, W.
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fallon, Michael


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Favell, Tony


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Fearn, Ronald


Bowis, John
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Fookes, Dame Janet


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Brazier, Julian
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bright, Graham
Freeman, Roger


Budgen, Nicholas
French, Douglas


Burns, Simon
Galloway, George


Burt, Alistair
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Gill, Christopher


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Canavan, Dennis
Gregory, Conal





Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Nicholls, Patrick


Grylls, Michael
Norris, Steve


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hague, William
O'Brien, William


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Paice, James


Harris, David
Paisley, Rev Ian


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Parry, Robert


Hayward, Robert
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hill, James
Pawsey, James


Hind, Kenneth
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Holt, Richard
Pendry, Tom


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Price, Sir David


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Reid, Dr John


Irving, Sir Charles
Robertson, George


Janman, Tim
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Jessel, Toby
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kennedy, Charles
Shelton, Sir William


Kilfedder, James
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Speed, Keith


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Latham, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lawrence, Ivan
Stokes, Sir John


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Sumberg, David


Lightbown, David
Summerson, Hugo


Lilley, Peter
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


McCrea, Rev William
Thorne, Neil


McFall, John
Thornton, Malcolm


McLoughlin, Patrick
Tracey, Richard


McNamara, Kevin
Trimble, David


Maginnis, Ken
Trippier, David


Malins, Humfrey
Twinn, Dr Ian


Marlow, Tony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Moate, Roger
Watts, John


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Monro, Sir Hector
Whitney, Ray


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Widdecombe, Ann


Moss, Malcolm



Moynihan, Hon Colin
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mudd, David
Mrs. Ann Winterton and Mr. A. E. P. Duffy.


Murphy, Paul



Neubert, Michael





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Adley, Robert
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


Allason, Rupert
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Allen, Graham
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Arbuthnot, James
Buck, Sir Antony


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Butler, Chris


Armstrong, Hilary
Butterfill, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Caborn, Richard


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Callaghan, Jim


Ashton, Joe
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Carr, Michael


Barron, Kevin
Carrington, Matthew


Beckett, Margaret
Cartwright, John


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Blunkett, David
Chapman, Sydney


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Boswell, Tim
Clay, Bob


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Clelland, David


Boyes, Roland
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bradley, Keith
Cohen, Harry


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Coleman, Donald


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Colvin, Michael






Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Kirkwood, Archy


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Knapman, Roger


Corbyn, Jeremy
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Couchman, James
Knowles, Michael


Cousins, Jim
Knox, David


Cox, Tom
Lambie, David


Cryer, Bob
Leadbitter, Ted


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lee, John (Pendle)


Curry, David
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dalyell, Tam
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Darling, Alistair
Lewis, Terry


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Litherland, Robert


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Livingstone, Ken


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Livsey, Richard


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dobson, Frank
Loyden, Eddie


Doran, Frank
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Durant, Tony
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Dykes, Hugh
McAllion, John


Eggar, Tim
McKelvey, William


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Maclean, David


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McLeish, Henry


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Madden, Max


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Madel, David


Farr, Sir John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Marek, Dr John


Fishburn, John Dudley
Marland, Paul


Fisher, Mark
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Flannery, Martin
Martlew, Eric


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mates, Michael


Forman, Nigel
Maxton, John


Forth, Eric
Meacher, Michael


Foster, Derek
Meale, Alan


Foulkes, George
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Franks, Cecil
Michael, Alun


Fraser, John
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Fyfe, Maria
Miscampbell, Norman


Gale, Roger
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gardiner, George
Mitchell, Sir David


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


George, Bruce
Moore, Rt Hon John


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Morley, Elliot


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Morrison, Sir Charles


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mowlam, Marjorie


Goodlad, Alastair
Mullin, Chris


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Needham, Richard


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Nellist, Dave


Graham, Thomas
Nelson, Anthony


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Grocott, Bruce
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Hanley, Jeremy
Page, Richard


Hannam, John
Patchett, Terry


Hardy, Peter
Patnick, Irvine


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Harman, Ms Harriet
Pike, Peter L.


Haselhurst, Alan
Prescott, John


Haynes, Frank
Primarolo, Dawn


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hinchliffe, David
Radice, Giles


Hood, Jimmy
Raffan, Keith


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Rathbone, Tim


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Richardson, Jo


Howells, Geraint
Riddick, Graham


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hoyle, Doug
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rogers, Allan


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Rowe, Andrew


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Ruddock, Joan


Illsley, Eric
Ryder, Richard


Ingram, Adam
Sackville, Hon Tom


Irvine, Michael
Sedgemore, Brian


Jack, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Jackson, Robert
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)





Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Trotter, Neville


Short, Clare
Turner, Dennis


Skinner, Dennis
Wallace, James


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Walley, Joan


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Snape, Peter
Wareing, Robert N.


Soley, Clive
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wells, Bowen


Squire, Robin
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wheeler, Sir John


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Wiggin, Jerry


Steen, Anthony
Wigley, Dafydd


Steinberg, Gerry
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Stevens, Lewis
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wilshire, David


Strang, Gavin
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)



Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis
Tellers for the Noes:


Thurnham, Peter
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody and Mr. Robert Key.


Townend, John (Bridlington)

Question accordingly negatived.

SCHEDULE 3

CONSENTS TO USE OF GAMETES OR EMBRYOS.

Amendment made: No. 49, in page 32, line 8, at end insert—
'(4) Any consent required by this paragraph is in addition to any consent that may be required by paragraph 5 above.'.—[Mrs. Virginia Bottomley.]

Clause 13

CONDITIONS OF LICENCES FOR TREATMENT

Mr. Thurnham: I beg to move amendment No. 56, in page 6, line 31, at end add
'including information about their physical characteristics, family background, education, skills and interests and health history.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this, it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 57, in page 7, line 14, at end add
including information recorded under subsection (2)(c) above.'.

No. 33, in clause 30, page 17, line 17, at end insert—
'(aa) giving the applicant all information including identifying information relating to the person concerned, if the applicant, the person treated by virtue of sections 27 to 29 of this Act as the parents of the applicant and, before the information was recorded, the person concerned, have all recorded in writing their consent to the identity of the person concerned being made known to the applicant.'.

Government amendment No. 60.

No. 31A, in page 17, line 21, at end insert —
'( ) A person who has attained the age of eighteen ("the applicant") and who has received the opportunity for proper counselling required to be provided under section 30(3)(b) may by notice to the Authority require the Authority to comply with a request to give the applicant all the information relating to the applicant which is held by the Authority.

Government amendments Nos. 59 and 58.

Government new clause 11—Civil liability to child with disability.

Government new clause 12—Disclosure in interests of justice.

Government new clause 13—Disclosure in interests of justice: congenital disabilities, etc.

Mr. Thurnham: It is not my intention to divide the House on this amendment, but I take this opportunity to


raise the point at issue: the very difficult question of anonymity and striking a balance when talking about personal secrets. Should a mother tell her child that her apparent father is not her father? This is an area of family secrets for which it is most difficult to decide how the House should legislate. Apart from the issue of donor children, I understand that between 5 and 20 per cent. of the population have a father who is not their true father. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that those hon. Members who are not listening to the debate will carry on their conversations elsewhere.

Mr. Thurnham: Approximately 60 per cent. of donor parents do not tell anyone—the child or their relatives and friends —that the child is a donor child, but some 40 per cent. of donor parents are happy to tell their families and friends, and, in due course, the child that the child is a donor child.
The Swedish Government decided that it was wrong to allow such secrets to be kept and legislated that donor children must be told the identity of their true fathers and mothers, but in Britain there is a strong weight of feeling that we should allow anonymity to continue. Some people feel that we should not force a family to burden a child —as they see it—with the details of his or her parents. So the Government are in a dilemma as to how to legislate to allow anonymity to continue but to allow for possible changes in future as has happened with the adoption laws which allowed it retrospectively.
We have to consider whether donors who donated anonymously could retrospectively lose that anonymity. Some people in the medical world believe that the supply of donors would dry up without anonymity, but others tell me that that is not the case. King's College hospital in London carried out a survey among donors. Only one third of the donors were opposed to identification. The other two thirds were either in favour of it or reserved their position on any disclosure of identity. I understand that Hammersmith hospital is also in favour of the identification of donors on the basis that dark secrets within the family are not the best way to bring up a child. The British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, the British Association of Social Workers, the Association of Directors of Social Services and the British Infertility Counselling Association are all in favour of moving away from anonymity and towards identification.
I tabled amendment No. 33 with a view to finding out whether any middle ground exists. If donors are agreeable to identification at the time of donation and the parents agree to identification at the time of treatment and, in due course, the child is in favour of identification, the child could discover the identity of his or her true genetic mother or father. That is not always clear, and no doubt one would have to have a DNA genetic blood test to establish a sure identification. Although I put forward amendment No. 33 to establish whether there is any middle ground, I feel that people are on one side or the other.
I should like the Government to make it clear whether they consider that there is any possibility of a retrospective change in the law and, if they wanted to change the law to allow identification, how they would go about it and how they would assess what people's feelings really were. If they do not want to accept amendment No. 33 as part of the Bill, perhaps they will accept the wording as part of

regulations so that we could have regulations now to allow children to be born who would be able to identify their genetic parents at a later date.
There is an argument that that might create two classes of children, but later tonight we shall discuss an amendment that concerns another place dealing with whether donor children should be allowed to inherit titles and sit in another place. If we are to allow two classes of children in those circumstances, surely it cannot be wrong to enable at least some children to have a legal right to establish the identity of their father or mother.
Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 do not go quite as far as amendment No. 33. Amendment No. 57 seeks to ensure that information about donors is given to prospective parents at the time of treatment. There may be good reasons not to disclose the identity of the donor to the parents, but the rest of the information about the donor needs to be given to them so that they can pass it on to the child when he or she is ready to receive it. Children's curiosity about their genetic origins may arise at any time and the best people to attempt to satisfy it are likely to be their parents. The information may also help the parents in bringing up the child.
7.45 pm
It is worth noting that the Adoption Agencies Regulations 1983 require adoption agencies to give prospective adopters details of the child's personal history and background before placement and, as the Government's circular accompanying the regulations points out:
it should be explained to the adopters that the information is provided not only to help them to bring up the child but also on behalf of the child himself.
Counsellors working with couples receiving infertility treatment have found that the lack of information about donors is frequently the cause of much disquiet and distress to their clients.
Amendment No. 56 seeks to ensure that where gametes or embryos are provided by donors to be used for treatment services, sufficient information about the donor is obtained at the time of donation and recorded. The purpose of recording such information is chiefly to enable any child born as a result of the treatment services to have some knowledge about his or her genetic parents.
Although, without the amendment, it would be open to the licensing authority to specify in regulations that such information should be recorded, it is too important a matter to be left to directions. The Warnock committee talked only of recording particulars of the ethnic origin and genetic health of donors. There are problems concerning the ethnic community involving infertility treatment and attention should be paid to helping ethnic minorities in that connection.
The Warnock committee also spoke of a view among some of its members that there should be a move towards gathering more information and making it available to prospective parents. In the six years since the Warnock committee reported, there has been a considerable shift in views among those with experience in these matters, and it seems important to ensure that as much information as it is reasonable to seek should be gathered from the donors. Even if the current legislation does not make provision for that information to be made available in its entirety to any resulting child, it is more likely that well within the lifetime of such a child there will be a change in the law which will permit children access to further information about their


genetic parents. It is important therefore that the information should be recorded now to allow for that future possibility.
Other points have been put to me by people working with these issues. I understand that there is a legal case which may have some relevance. My attention was drawn to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Gaskin v. The United Kingdom in 1989. That case centred on Graham Gaskin's demand for access to records held by Liverpool city council in whose care he had been as a child. The court, finding in favour of Gaskin, held that
respect for his private … life",
as outlined in article 8 of the European convention on human rights, requires that
everyone should be able to establish details of their identity as individual human beings".
I have covered the main points that I wish to raise. I do not wish to push the amendments to a Division, but I should like the Government to consider them, answer fully and, if they intend to leave it to regulations, to make sure that those regulations cover the points that I have raised.

Ms. Dawn Primarolo: This group of amendments is concerned with anonymity, and there are two competing arguments about anonymity of the donor. The first argument is that put forward by the British Association of Social Workers and the Association of Directors of Social Services. Their argument is compelling in that it advocates that the identity of the donor should be revealed, including characteristics, and they draw a direct analogy with adopted children. While we accept the strength of their case in respect of adopted children, only 5 per cent. of those children, when they reach the age of 18, take the opportunity of finding out the identity of their natural mothers. Obviously it is impossible for many of them to discover the identity of their natural fathers. We do not accept that there is a direct and fair comparison with the possibility of young adults, created as a result of infertility treatments, seeking the identity of their natural parents. It is not a sensible comparison.
We accept and understand that the clinics, and the licensing authority eventually, will collect information and know the identity of donors. If, for medical reasons, it is necessary to identify a donor at a subsequent stage, that will be possible. However, we do not believe that it is necessary for a person on reaching the age of 18 to be given information identifying the donor.
Those of us who are parents and who care for children and understand their needs, and those of us who wish to create a caring and supporting environment in which children are valued, would not want to create circumstances in the Bill that would allow children to be distinguished or separated from each other on the basis of whether they were adopted children, the issue of their natural parents or children produced as the result of infertility treatments. We should aim to create an environment in which all children are loved, supported, cared for and respected. To try to develop divisions and to distinguish between types of children because of infertility treatments is unacceptable.
The information and views of those who put forward the opposite argument—for the non-identification of the donor—stem from the experience in Sweden. We received submissions, which we discussed in Committee, to the effect that identifying the donor will restrict the number of donors who come forward to take part in research

programmes. It is also argued that the parents of children produced as the result of IVF do not want the donor to be identified.
I do not believe that children's curiosity about themselves and their attributes extends to them wanting to know about their genetic origins or the characteristics of their donor mother or father. Amendment No. 56 suggests that the information that should be made available to children is
physical characteristics, family background, education, skills and interests".
Those are very emotive characteristics and we could have long debates about the definitions of those characteristics.
Who would want to discover that one's donor was dull and uninteresting, but well meaning? Who would want to discover that the family background of one's donor was that he was the only son of a family that was now deceased? Who would want to learn that one's donor's education amounted to five GCSEs at grade D? What if the donor's skills were clerical and his interests were bird keeping and being a wireless ham?
While I have nothing against those interests, I believe that people would rather see the following attributes about the donor: physical characteristicstall, slim, blond and blue-eyed; family background—athlete and astronaut; education—Cambridge PhD; skills—astrophysicist; interests—opera, theatre and sport.
I do not mean to be flippant; I just want to show that providing such information would be exceedingly difficult and would not be in the best interests of the child. It would not help the child to understand himself or herself or to develop in society. The Bill should do nothing to threaten the possibility of people coming forward as donors. It should do nothing to undermine the programmes.
There is evidence that those seeking treatment are opposed to any possibility of a child having access to information about the donor. We believe that at this stage the donor should remain anonymous and no information about the donor should be available.
In that sense, the Bill as it is currently drafted makes no commitment to either camp. It does not commit itself to making the identity available, nor does it commit itself to not making that information available eventually. We believe that perhaps there is no other way to satisfy both views and we support the view expressed in the Bill.
Amendment No. 56 relates to clause 13 and in no other part of the Bill is the tension between biological and social more explicit. None of us can honestly say that we know the effects of the Bill on children who are born as a result of donated gametes. We cannot say whether it will matter to those children to know that they have been born as a result of that process. Although the approach of the Department of Health will not satisfy the competing arguments, we believe that the Bill advances the best way to proceed bearing in mind the Swedish experience.
According to the notes on clauses, new clauses 11, 12 and 13 provide for the suing of the donor parent and the parents who have undertaken the infertility treatment by a child who has suffered a disability as a result of the treatment. Those provisions refer to the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liabilities) Act 1976, which is
An Act to make provision as to civil liability in the case of children born disabled in consequence of some person's fault".
We are surprised, indeed stunned, that such a serious addition to the Bill should be produced at this late stage,


making it impossible for hon. Members adequately to consider the proposal. We are not happy about the new clauses because they open up dangerous questions. Unless the Minister can give us various assurances, we believe that the House would be making a dreadful mistake if it were to include that material in the legislation. We shall vote against the new clauses.

Mr. Alton: I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. I very much welcome her statement and can assure her that many of us will be in the Lobby with her on that matter. Does she accept that the provisions would do two undesirable things? First, they would place pressures on doctors who would then feel unable to carry out IVF, and they would place on doctors the pressure to destroy an embryo that they think might in any way result in a disabled person. Both those things are highly undesirable and unacceptable. It is appalling that at this late stage—at the very fag end of our deliberations on the Bill—such provisions, involving enormously important principles, should be introduced so cavalierly.

Ms. Primarolo: I am in some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point. I shall be interested to hear the Secretary of State's reply on this matter—as I am sure the whole House will be.
8 pm
It is ludicrous to include in the Bill such highly emotive and contentious words as
information about their physical characteristics, family background, education, skills and interests and health history.
We are pleased that amendment No. 56 will not be pushed to a Division. We believe that anonymity must remain to protect both the donor service and the possibility of infertility treatment. Any changes to the legislation must be made by the House only after a full debate, if that is what the House subsequently decides to do. As currently drafted, the new clauses give rise to considerable concern and we look forward to hearing the Secretary of State's justification for them.

Mr. Key: I wish to speak to amendment No. 60. It was a pleasant surprise to find, on coming to the House early this morning, that my amendment had been hijacked by none other than the Secretary of State himself.
I agree with much of what has been said about anonymity by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) and the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo). We had a good debate about that in Committee when it was debated with great care and not a little feeling on both sides of the argument. My hon. Friend the Minister restated the Government's position, which had been set out in paragraph 83 of the White Paper, which stated:
all adults over the age of 18 should have a legal right to find out whether they were born following gamete or embryo donation and that those who were should have a right of access to certain non-identifying information about the donor to be prescribed in regulations.
I am sure that the Government were right. That position.reflects the way in which the majority of those involved see the situation.
The Government were also right to leave open the possibility that the public perception of what is right may change over the years. It may, in future, be right to take advantage of the regulatory provision in the Bill to make available information that will identify the donor to they

young person. However, that presents a real difficulty here and now for clinicians, donors and potential donors. Up to now, clinicians have told donors that donations are given on the clear and categorical understanding that their identity will not be made known to any young person who might subsequently be born as a result of the donation. Now, clinicians will have to say to donors, "At present your identity will not be disclosed"—the new legislation makes that clear—"but a future Government may change the rules".
I draw the attention of the House yet again to the Swedish experience. Legislation introduced in Sweden in 1985 stated that when a child is of "sufficient maturity"—in practice that means around the age of 18—he or she has the right to know the identity of the donor. There were some beneficial and some damaging consequences of that move. As I understand it, the number of donors fell, donations had to be sought from a wider recruitment base—this may have been beneficial—partly in the hope of securing donations from men in stable relationships for whom later identification would not prove an embarrassment, and the number of couples seeking help fell. That was because of the overwhelming desire of the prospective parents to feel that the child would be fully theirs, and because of the social stigma that still attaches to infertility.
The Government's intention to provide legislation that will be responsive to future changes is wholly admirable. However, as the Bill stands, the effect will be the same as if they had legislated not to retain the anonymity of the donor—hence my amendment, which is designed 10 make it as sure as possible that all who donate under the present rules are protected if the rules change in the future. My amendment seeks to outlaw the retrospective identification of donors. It is in line with the Government's express intent and would enhance the viability of their approach in this sensitive area.

Mr. Alton: I do not intend to pursue the points made by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key).
I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) said about Graham Gaskin case. I raised that case in the House at the time because Graham Gaskin lived in Liverpool and his family had been my constituents. I was, therefore, well aware of the case which raised the issue of a person's identity and right to know about decisions that are made concerning his or her life. It was partly as a result of that case that my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) introduced his Bill about the right of access to medical records.
It is vital that people should know how and why decisions about their lives have been made, and that they should know about the people who created them. I believe that we face great dangers subsequently in life if we are unaware of the identity of our parents. If that knowledge is not made available, its absence can cause complex problems in the life of the person concerned. It is far better to be as honest, open and up-front as we possibly can.
The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) referred to new clause 11. I register my concern that such provisions have been tabled at such a late stage. I hope that the Secretary of State and the Solicitor-General will reconsider whether it is right to press the matter tonight or whether they should take the provisions away for further consideration. The new clause raises important new


questions, which were not debated in the Lords, in Committee or on Second Reading. It has been brought in with only 24 hours notice.
Only a few hon. Members spotted that it introduces a wholly new principle into our law. It means that if a doctor fails to remove and discard an embryo that may in some way be disabled, the doctor can subsequently be sued. That will place pressure on the medical profession to destroy embryos and to incorporate eugenics into medical ethics. That is wholly unacceptable.
The new clause will also result in the wrong kind of pressures on IVF treatment. Obviously, some doctors will feel great fear about proceeding with such methods if they think that they might be open to prosecution subsequently. It is hard to read the provisions in any other way. New clause 11(1)(1A)(1) states:
(b) the disability results from an act or omission in the course of the selection, or the keeping or use outside the body,"—
presumably, that means the freezing of embryos—
of the embryo carried by her or of the gametes used to bring about the creation of the embryo, and
(c) a person is under this section answerable to the child in respect of the act or omission,
the child's disabilities are to be regarded as damage resulting from the wrongful act of that person and actionable accordingly at the suit of the child.
The House should note the words, "the wrongful act".
If during the delivery of a child in a maternity unit a mistake was made—we are all familiar with disabilities caused as a result of the use of forceps, for example—and there was an accident, we would all accept that there would be a case to answer in court. However, to build into the Bill at this stage in its consideration the provisions that are set out in the new clauses is to send out all the wrong signals.
Many disabled people are left wondering. Serious handicap is not specified. The doctor may have doubts about cosmetic disability. I have in mind a cleft palate, a club foot or a hare lip. As the clause is drawn, that will be a reason why the doctor will have to remove and discard the embryo. If the doctor fails to do that, he will be open to prosecution. The House is being asked to follow a repugnant course and I hope that more thought will be given to it. The introduction of provisions with profound moral implications at such a late stage in our consideration of the Bill needs to be given much more thought before we can enact them.
There are many hon. Members present with whom I do not necessarily agree on all occasions, and that can be said of their response to my arguments. There is, however, unanimity among many Opposition Members on this issue, and I suspect that that is the position on the Government Benches. I hope that the Secretary of State will feel able to give much more consideration to the provisions that he has presented to us and, if necessary, to bring them back in the form of Lords amendments.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I did not rise at the beginning of the debate because my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) had tabled the first amendment in the group and because I did not anticipate any serious controversy on the Government's three new clauses. I intervene at this stage because it is clear that hon. Members are anxious for an explanation of the new clauses. I hope that I shall be able to persuade the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) that he

has misunderstod the purport of them. New clause 11 is the only one that appears to be arousing controversy, but it is designed to afford protection to the children in question. It presents no threat to them and it does not raise the great moral issues with which, as we all know, the hon. Gentleman is consistenly concerned.
The selection of amendments and new clauses turns on the nature of the information about the donors of sperm that is to be kept on the authority's register and on the circumstances in which certain information might or might not be released to certain people. We should remind ourselves that clause 30 requires the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to keep a register of information if it relates, first, to the provision of treatment services for any identifiable individual or, secondly, the keeping or use of the gametes of identifiable individuals, or if it is shown that an identifiable individual was or may have been born as a result of treatment services. Treatment services for these purposes really mean infertility treatment involving donations of sperm, eggs or embryos.
That information is confidential, and it must be. Clause 32 provides that save in certain specified circumstances it will be a criminal offence for a member or an employee of the authority to disclose information kept on the register.
The new clauses are all designed to cover three circumstances where the Government, including my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, have upon reflection thought that there should be cases where the courts must have access to the information in the interests of the child concerned and in the interests of justice. Amendment No. 59 provides an exception to the normal rule where the courts may order disclosure of information on the register in specified circumstances.
I shall deal first with the two new clauses that I think will not cause a great deal of trouble. New clause 12 deals with the position where a question arises in a court of law whether a person is or is not to be treated as a parent by virtue of clauses 27 or 28. There are various circumstances in which that might arise, such as certain orders under the Children Act 1989 and declarations of parentage under the Family Law Act 1986. A good example might be an application for a maintenance order for the child where paternity is disputed. I am talking about a situation where a man and a woman have gone together for infertility treatment, in circumstances where the man should thereafter carry the legal liabilities of a father for maintenance. Let us suppose that subsequently an argument arises about whether the man was a party to the treatment. The court might have no evidence upon which to base its decision other than the word of the parties. Those circumstances would contrast rather sharply with an ordinary case where the child has been conceived naturally.
8.15 pm
The best evidence of the legal relationship between the persons concerned may be contained in the authority's register. The information held may show, for example, that the two named persons did receive treatment together. Without that information, the court may have insufficient evidence to reach a decision. The result may be the making of no maintenance order where the man was, in fact, the legal father. That would be an injustice to the mother and to the child. We believe that it would be wrong to deny courts access to that information.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Clarke: I shall finish my explanation and then I shall give way to my hon. Friend.
We must ensure that the only information that is released under a court order is that which is relevant to the issue before the court. New clause 12 cases would involve facts relevant to the question whether a person is or is not the parent. In none of these cases will the court require information about donors. What is needed to determine who is to be treated as the parent is information about the persons who receive treatment services and persons who were born as a result. New clause 12(1) expressly prevents information about donors being disclosed because the physical characteristics of the donor are irrelevant. It is necessary only to know whether it was an AID case in which the man was a party to the treatment being received.

Mrs. Currie: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I shall give way to my hon. Friend after I have completed my explanation of the new clause.
There are two further safeguards. First, subsection (2) provides that a court must not make such an order unless it is satisfied that the interests of justice require it. Secondly. it gives a court dealing with a civil case where such disclosure has been made the power to sit in camera. In common with other matrimonial proceedings, this is not something that should be on public record.
I would not anticipate that anyone would be opposed to new clause 12. At this stage, I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie).

Mrs. Currie: It would help those of us who have struggled to understand at short notice the principle of the new clauses if my right hon. and learned Friend will confirm that they are not intended to create a situation in which claims can be made by the child against the donor. We wish to be assured that donors can donate freely, as we would want them to do, and to be sure that in years to come they will not have someone appear out of the blue and say. "I am after your house, your property and your name".

Mr. Clarke: That issue arises under new clause 11. It is the one which has alarmed the hon. Members for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) and the hon. Member for Mossley Hill. The answer is that those circumstances will not arise. There is no intention to give the child any general right of action against the donor.
New clause 13 is non-controversial but I shall deal with new clause 11 first before turning to it. New clause 11 is designed essentially to give children born as a result of these treatments the same rights against people who have caused him or her injury as a result of some default or negligence as those that have been given to children born naturally. The rights of children born naturally were given to them by the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 1976. That measure was passed to give children legal remedies in respect of wrongful action or omissions that took place before the child was born or, perhaps, even conceived. It deals with wrongful acts or omissions where the negligence of those carrying out the treatment has led to the child being born disabled.
The Act was not required to give the parents a remedy. If parents suffer injury, under common law they can sue those who gave the treatment for the injury from which

they suffer. Before the 1976 Act, there was serious doubt whether, in cases where the parents could not demonstrate that they had suffered from an injury, the child had a right of action in respect of acts that took place before birth or even conception. Clearly, in 1976 the House thought it right to extend to a child the right to take civil action in those circumstances. New clause 11 is merely trying to ensure that that protection is given to children born as a result of AID. It would put them on the same footing as children born naturally.

Ms. Primarolo: As the Secretary of State outlined the new clause as giving the same protection to children born by IVF as exists for those born naturally, we accept the principle. Clause 1 of the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 1976 states:
If a child is born disabled as the result of such an occurrence before its birth as is mentioned in subsection (2) below…a person (other than the child's own mother) is under this subsection answerable to the child.
Who could perform the wrongful act?

Mr. Clarke: The people administering the treatment. If someone responsible for IVF was negligent with the result that injury was caused to the child, the new clause would give the child a legal remedy. The action would be similar to that which a child would have against an obstetrician in natural childbirth. Nobody would wish to take away the remedies provided in the 1976 Act to a child who is damaged during a natural delivery by negligence, which, inevitably, occasionally occurs.

Ms. Primarolo: What about the donor?

Mr. Clarke: I can conceive of no circumstances in which the donor of sperm for the treatment could conceivably be accused of a wrongful act which gives rise to injury to the child, unless there were a deliberate failure or refusal to disclose a transmittable disease. If a donor wilfully donates what he knows to be contaminated or genetically defective sperm, such an action could possibly arise, but that is to go into the realms of fantasy. [Interruption.] If somebody willingly donates sperm which he knows to be HIV positive, I am not sure why he should be protected from an action brought by the child. On the other hand, I do not think that a child would do that because those who administered the treatment who had failed to screen for HIV positive or to detect that the embryo was not developing normally through some other congenital abnormality would be the obvious choice.
I am in danger of speaking off the cuff and I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General is sitting behind me because he has been in practice more recently. One reason for having a properly licensed and regulated treatment is that a responsible treatment centre should screen for HIV positive sperm and should take steps to ensure that there is no genetic defect in the embryo in the early stages of development.
I do not believe that we are giving any extra incentive to doctors to abort children or anything of that sort. There is no difference between these cases and cases of natural childbirth. The hon. Member for Mossley Hill presupposes that anybody who is responsible for the supervision of a case and who discovers that something is wrong will kill his or her mistakes. That is not likely to happen. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is to get the wrong end of the stick.
The new clause is designed to give these children the same legal remedies as those that are available to children born as a result of natural childbirth. I know perfectly well that the hon. Gentleman would not intend to put children born as a result of IVF in a weaker legal position than those born as a result of natural childbirth.

Mr. Alton: Obviously, the Secretary of State accepts that because this involves establishing new principles and and a new birth procedure—not natural childbirth—the law must be considered differently. Presumably, once a child is born, whether through natural childbirth or IVF, the same remedies will exist in law, so the opportunities that he has just described would all be available. What happens if a child is born HIV positive? The parents may not know of the possibility because not everyone is screened in advance. What happens where some congenital disorder occurs subsequently, which the parents did not know about—perhaps caused by a strain which appears from time to time in the family? What happens if a disability occurs after freezing embryos? Everybody knows that the risks of disability in those circumstances are far greater, according to Professor Ronald Taylor and others. If that is true, what remedies will be open to a disabled person in those circumstances?

Mr. Clarke: I see no negligence or cause of action that could arise in any of those circumstances. I am not sure about the failure to screen for HIV. I understand that it is usual regularly to screen the donors of sperm to make sure that sperm is not being taken from an HIV-positive individual. It almost certainly would be negligent to do so. Certainly the other circumstances do not give rise to a cause of action.

Mr. Alton: What about freezing embryos?

Mr. Clarke: If the hon. Gentleman accepts the opinion of those who say that frozen sperm are more liable to have defects, he should appreciate that the new clause could give a child possible cause of action against the person who uses frozen sperm. It may give rise to litigation which the hon. Gentleman, presumably, would welcome, although, personally, I think that it would fail.
This possibility arises in few cases. It was an obscure change of the law in 1976. The parents in such circumstances always have the right to sue, but sometimes parents can demonstrate no particular damage, for example in financial terms, to themselves. Until 1976 the child was in an ambiguous position, not so much that he or she definitely had no right to sue as that it was unclear that the child had a right to sue for damages, relying on facts that occurred before he or she was born or even conceived. The law was changed for natural childbirth. If the new clause is accepted, the law will be changed for those born as a result of IVF. I imagine that the number of cases that would occur would be about the same. If the new clause is not accepted, the old legal problem would arise if a child conceived through IVF brought an action.
I accept that the provision is being introduced at a late stage. The point was not noticed previously. The House will recall that the Bill started in another place. If we do not introduce this provision on Report, we shall not be able to do so ever. If the Bill were at an earlier stage, I should probably undertake to withdraw the new clause

and give hon. Members more time for reflection, confident that they would accept it. If I do that this evening, we shall end up with a gap in the law and will deprive these children of a protection which other children have.

Mr. Wigley: I understand that if this provision is to be included, it must be inserted now and that it cannot be introduced in another place, unless as an amendment from this House. Can the Secretary of State clarify whether we shall have some opportunity to return to this matter, if the Bill is amended in another place? If so, could that opportunity be used to give hon. Members a chance to get into the guts of this a little more? Many of us feel that, although the Government may be right, we have not had an opportunity to take advice as we should like to do. We should be happier if we knew that the House of Lords could be encouraged to make amendments to allow us to return to this later.

Mr. Clarke: If the House carries the new clause, it will return to another place and their Lordships will have to decide whether they agree with it. I have no doubt that the case I am arguing will be argued with greater eloquence by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, whose amendment it is in origin, I am assured by the Solicitor-General. I imagine that the Lord Chancellor has a fair chance of persuading their Lordships. Unlike me, he has an audience of Law Lords who will doubtless take an interest in the subject as well.
8.30 pm
I am speaking off the cuff, but I think that it is true that if their Lordships agree with the new clause it will not return here. However, it means that there will be an interval within which hon. Members can make representations to the Lord Chancellor while the new clause is returning to another place and being debated there.
The Government are not proposing to impose on the House something that, in our opinion, raises serious ethical issues of the sort that we normally expect to concern the hon. Member for Mossley Hill and members of the pro-life group—or members of the pro-women's choice group such as the hon. Member for Bristol, South. I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor believes that he is merely filling a gap in the law that had been overlooked at an earlier stage of drafting.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: The Secretary of State was saying categorically that he could not think of any circumstances in which there could be a cause of action against the donor with relation to the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability ) Act 1976. Will he assure the House that there will be no cause of action running on the following lines. The child would say that the donor clearly had a duty of care towards the child. The donor may not have known that the sperm was defective, but his duty of care would have run to having had all the tests and personally satisfying himself that he knew that the sperm was not defective. Why could not a cause of action in negligence run against the donor, operated partly by taking on those giving the treatment, who would then join the donor? By an act of omission, could an action for negligence be taken out against the donor?

Mr. Clarke: This debate is becoming closer to a moot than a debate on the Floor of the House. I do not know about the hon. Gentleman, but I am out of practice at


moots. My instant reaction would be that, unless the donor knew that he was carrying a transmittable disease —in which case, he could be liable—he could ordinarily say that he had discharged his reasonable duty of care by relying on the expertise and precautions of the medical staff at the centre where the IVF treatment was given. He would expect something of which he was unaware to be detected by people with much more expertise to whom he gave the sperm that was to be donated.
It would be most unlikely for there to be a claim against the donor. I can think of no circumstances in which the child could have a claim against the parents—a point that was raised earlier. The wording of the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act, which looked alarming to the hon. Member for Mossley Hill, already exists for children born naturally. It covers the range of causes of action that might arise before a child is born and for which a child might wish to bring an action.

Ms. Harman: I wish to follow up the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) about the duty of care. We must do everything we can to reassure donors, who provide a helpful service, that they will not be liable, because that would be a major deterrent for people donating sperm. They could sue the people responsible for treatment—the clinic. The clinic staff could look up the files to identify the donor and fish around to discover that he had worked at Sellafield but had not disclosed that. The position is not as clear as somebody knowing that they have AIDS. They might know that they had unprotected intercourse with someone who might have had other partners. Possibilities are opened up, and it is not necessarily good enough for the Secretary of State to say that he cannot, at present, think of any likely scenario. We have clearly identified that the possibility is very much there.

Mr. Clarke: It strikes me in retrospect that the possibility is exceedingly remote. I am prepared to concede that it is arguable that the donor owes the normal duty of care towards the child who is eventually born. However, he is only expected to take reasonable care and disclose the facts that he would expect an ordinary layman or medical student to have to give to those in the clinic giving the treatment, who have all the expertise and facilities at their disposal.
The primary duty is on the clinic staff to satisfy themselves, by questions of the donor and medical tests and screening of the semen, that the semen used is satisfactory. If a genetic abnormality is occurring it is in the nature of IVF that observation of the embryo's development and proper handling of the case is an important part of the treatment. Causes of action—I do not think that there will be many of them—are far more likely to arise against the clinic. There are only remote circumstances in which the donor could be at risk. He would be at risk only if there had been negligence on his part.

Mr. Alton: Is the Secretary of State saying that it would be a matter of negligence and the clinic would be open to be sued if it had failed to detect an embryo that went on to become a Down's syndrome child, and that failure to destroy that embryo would open the way for an action?

Mr. Clarke: It would do so no more than the failure to destroy a foetus carrying Down's syndrome could be the cause of action with natural childbirth. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman returned to that point, because I did not deal with it fully before. The hon. Gentleman believes that there will be a cause of action against doctors for failing to terminate a pregnancy likely to produce a disabled child, but I do not believe that. There is no distinction between an IVF pregnancy and a natural pregnancy for the purpose. It can happen with a natural pregnancy and, conceivably—although it is slightly less likely—happen with an IVF pregnancy.
We have not reached the position in this country—I hope that we never will—where a failure on the part of the doctor to pressurise a mother, against her will, to abort a handicapped child would be a cause of action. That is not the case. There is absolutely no difference between an IVF case and a natural childbirth case. Nothing new is being created here.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: New clause 11(3) states:
The defendant is not under this section answerable to the child if at the time the embryo, or the sperm and eggs, are placed in the woman or the time of her insemination (as the case may he) either or both of the parents knew the risk of their child being born disabled.
The clinic, to cover the possibility of an action for damages being brought against it, might wish to make a blanket statement about any possible risks as a result of the treatment. It could be argued in future that the parent knew of the risk of his or her child being born disabled. Would not it be a way of insulating the clinic and the doctor against the possibility of damages if the clinic gave a general statement of the risks that might arise from such treatment?

Mr. Clarke: I did not completely follow the hon. Gentleman's argument, but I think that the answer is no. No action arises automatically because a child it; born disabled, whether it is born as a result of IVF or natural birth. It does not automatically follow that anyone has been negligent or liable for a civil cause of action because a disabled child has been born. The only cause of action that arises under either circumstances is if the disability arises as a result of somebody's negligence.
We are all accustomed to the cases where the parents, and, under the 1976 Act, the child, have an action brought on their behalf against the obstetrician in natural childbirth because the obstetrician's actions have, through negligence, unfortunately caused the disability. The same action would arise against the clinic. All that the I-louse will ensure by rejecting the new clause is that, whereas a child born naturally can sue the obstetrician for negligence, a child born as a result of IVF cannot sue the people who run the clinic and the doctors there for negligence. For that reason my noble Friend is correct to say that the logic of the 1976 Act means that we should put IVF children on all fours with those born naturally.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: I am getting more confused as the minutes roll by. Is not it true that a child conceived and born naturally will not be screened in the first part of its life? However, a child conceived by IVF will be screened because no gynaecologist or doctor would want to reimplant a woman with an embryo that was not perfect.


If by any mischance a disabled child was born, would it have the right to sue the clinic or the doctor for having been born?

Mr. Clarke: I query the beginning of my hon. Friend's statement because, at least nowadays, in natural childbirth screening is carried out for handicap. Amniocentesis is becoming a regular practice. Nobody claims that an action for negligence could be brought by the child because the child was not aborted, presumably on the decision of the mother. I cannot imagine an action being brought because a child was allowed to be born when screening showed that it was disabled. If the child is not born because the defective embryo has been removed, no question of this kind arises. The parents might sue, but I cannot see how on earth a child would bring an action to obtain compensation for the fact that it was not destroyed at the embryonic stage. I could not put together a claim for loss or damages in such circumstances.
I do not think that we can take the matter much further. I have done my best to explain the new clause. We have not had long to look at the matter and it is understandable that some hon. Members are worried and suspicious and trying to find circumstances that might give rise to problems. They are mistaken to object to new clause 11 because, by doing so, they will be putting a child born as a result of IVF in an inferior position in law to a child born naturally. No doubt the other place will return to that.

Ms. Primarolo: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I shall give way just twice more and then move to new clause 13 in the fond belief that it will present no difficulties.

Ms. Primarolo: I understand the Minister's arguments, but there are still difficulties about clarification. As the Solicitor-General has entered the Chamber, perhaps he could give us a legal clarification. That could help us because, while we have much sympathy with the Secretary of State's argument and support it in principle, we are worried about the drafting of the new clause.

Mr. Clarke: I should be glad to ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General whether he would be interested in taking part in the debate. I trust that he will deploy the same arguments. I think that I took silk on the same day as my right hon. and learned Friend, but by that time I had ceased practising and he has practised regularly ever since. He has heard the hon. Lady and may consider having a second go on new clause 11.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am listening carefully to the Secretary of State. There are two solutions. I understand the logic of wanting to make sure that children born as a result of one procedure have the same rights as children born as a result of another. We could have amending legislation later if the matter is controversial. It might be better to proceed down that road if it is not possible to resolve the problems now. New clause 11(1)1A(1)(a) and (b) must, as a matter of drafting and logic, leave open a course of action by the child in relation to an argument that the selection process at the beginning of the child's gestation was in some way defective. The Secretary of State put an extreme case, but

I am arguing not that the option is that the child would not have been born but that it would have been born able bodied rather than disabled. There must be that cause of action and I agree that it would be taken by the parents. Perhaps it would be better to take this matter separately and remedy the law soon.

Mr. Clarke: An action could arise in such circumstances. An action could arise in a case where a child would have been born able bodied if someone had not been negligent. It would arise where the embryo was healthy and developing normally, but, as a result of some default on the part of someone responsible for the care of that child, it was damaged and the child was born disabled. In precisely such a case new clause 11 could give rise to an action. I do not think that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is worried about that.
If a child is born disabled because the embryo was naturally damaged from the beginning and everybody behaved properly, no cause of action arises. I am not sure whether my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General is persuaded to intervene. He may intervene later. He and I are perfectly prepared to undertake to ask the Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers to look at all this between now and the Bill going to the House of Lords to consider the points that have been made and to consider again whether the Government are unintentionally introducing an amendment that gives rise to the kind of moral and ethical issues that worry hon. Members. I do not think that that is the case, but no doubt after the debate the matter will be canvassed thoroughly and carefully in another place.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Minister says that he is trying to ensure that children born under these procedures would have the same rights under the 1976 Act as children born naturally. There is a distinction. Under the 1976 Act, as it has been explained by the Minister, a child would be able to sue back to the point of fertilisation and responsibility would be placed on the doctor during the period from fertilisation to birth. However, under what we are now discussing children would have an additional right to sue for procedures that were carried out to the embryo prior to fertilisation.

Mr. Clarke: I am subject to correction by my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, but my understanding is that under the 1976 Act the law merely gives the child a right of action based on facts that have occurred before birth or before conception. I have already mentioned cases of negligence by the obstetrician with which we are all familiar. Other circumstances are where a car accident occurs and a pregnant woman is one of those injured and the foetus is damaged by a negligent driver. I can think of cases where a woman has been injured by the negligence of someone before conception and the nature of the injury is such that, when she conceives, the child is damaged. The 1976 Act is designed for such cases.
New clause 11 merely says that the same remedies are available to an IVF child so that where there is fault on the part of some person that causes injury to the child, and the fault occurs as a result of facts that occurred before the child's birth or conception and injures the parents, the child will have a cause of action.
I hope that the House and another place are satisfied that all we are doing is putting the law on all fours for children. however they may be born.

Mrs. Fyfe: I thank the Secretary of State for his patience. What would happen in a case in which no clinic was involved, but a woman had simply come to an informal arrangement with a man and inserted the sperm herself? That is perfectly possible, and I hear that it is being done already. Obviously, it is an unsafe and undesirable procedure, but it happens.

Mr. Clarke: I do not think that anything arises from such a case because the provisions in new clause 11 affect those responsible for
the keeping or use outside the body, of the embryo…or of the gametes used
to create the child—usually the licence holders. The 1976 Act gives no right of action to the child against a parent. I cannot conceive of any action arising in the circumstances that the hon. Lady has described, which would he included in the provisions of new clause 11, and which would give rise to any action.
I suggest to the House that I proceed to new clause 13. If my advisers and my right hon. and learned Friend the Solictor-General believe that I have gone off the rails and have misled the House, there will be an opportunity for hon. Members to collect their thoughts and for them to intervene and to correct me. I think that my right hon. and learned Friend is with me so far. We cannot continue this viva voce on new clause 11 this evening.
I shall read a note, which has been passed to me, concerning the issue raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe). It says that it is not possible to sue the mother, except when she injured herself, for example in a motor accident, as a result of her own negligent driving. That is the provision of the 1976 Act. Therefore, except when the mother has injured herself by her own negligent act, and as a result has injured the child that she is carrying, the child cannot sue.
New clause 12 deals with the disclosure of information about donors or gametes to the courts, and it will not allow the disclosure of information about donors, because it is more sensitive than information about people who receive treatment. All hon. Members who have spoken have said that the anonymity of the donor should be preserved in all cases in present circumstances, which I shall return to in a moment.
New clause 13 contains the only case in which we propose that the courts should have the power to order disclosure of information about donors. Section 1 of the 1976 Act, which we have just been describing, provides a remedy for a child against a person who caused harm to his or her parent, which affected the parent's ability to have a normal, healthy child. An example might be the wrongful exposure of the parent to radiation or to a genetic disease which might be passed on to the offspring. When a child is born as a result of natural conception, the 1976 Act would enable the child to seek redress directly againt the third party who caused the injury to the parent, which was one of the issues raised in an intervention. When a child is born as a result of donation, the person whose injury led to the child's disability must be the genetic parent—the donor. Unless the child has the means of knowing who the donor is, in practice, it would be impossible for him to start such an action.
We have given careful consideration to whether we should allow disclosure of identifying information about the donor in that case. We have decided that the main guide to policy must in principle be that children born by donation must have the same legal rights as children conceived in the usual way. Therefore, in that one case the privacy of the donor must take second place to the rights of disabled children to seek compensation against those people whom the law provides must be answerable to them. Under the 1976 Act that person is not the donor, but the person who injured the donor.

Mr. Wigley: Clearly, there is a danger that the donor's identity will become known when it otherwise would not be known. Is not there a possibility that the donor's identity will become known, but the donor may not be guilty of any trespass? Although he may not have done anything to warrant disclosure, he may find that his identity has been disclosed because an action has started, and the confidentiality, which we originally thought would exist, would therefore be taken away from him through no fault of his own.

Mr. Clarke: Yes, that is the case. In the circumstances that I have just described, which new clause 13 is designed to provide for, the donor would be innocent. He would have been injured before he donated the sperm—for example, by exposure to radiation—in such a way that his natural child, born later as a result of IVF, was injured.
The Government have decided that the right of the child, suffering as a result of the exposure of the natural parent, to bring an action should justify the courts making such an order. The extent to which information is disclosed would be restricted, but obviously it would be important to know who the person is before the child can have the chance to take any action.
I shall deal briefly with the other amendments, although I expected to speak about them more fully, but I cannot speak for much longer.

Ms. Harman: I presume that the Secretary of State meant that it would be for the court to decide the extent to which information was disclosed. Does he envisage some protection to prevent the publication of the name of a donor whose identity is revealed to the court? Would there be a prohibition on the name of the donor being given to the press? Would the information be given to the court, where there would be a barrier, and it would then leapfrog over the barrier of the person who has committed negligence to the donor? Or would the information be disclosed and be completely open from then on? For example, could we have the case of, "The Infant W v. Sellafield and Mr. Y," or would more information be given? What would be the procedure?

Mr. Clarke: The identity of the donor would have to be disclosed to all those people taking part in the action because the defendant would obviously have to know the name and identity of the person that the defendant is accused of having injured. At the moment, there is no express provision in the new clause for hearing in camera —[Interruption.] My right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General assures me that the court could sit in camera if the anonymity of the donor in the case might otherwise be threatened, and the court could restrict reporting.
Before I rose to answer the attacks on new clause 11 we were debating—at some length—the nature of information recorded about a donor and a donor's anonymity.
I am not surprised to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East has abandoned the Chamber during discussions of the Government new clauses, but I am sure that he will be back. I must answer his comments about amendments Nos. 56 and 57, which I think he said that he was not proposing to press if the Government prefer to rely on regulations to determine the exact nature of the information to be kept. We must rely on regulations if only to keep the arrangements flexible and change them in the light of evolving opinion.
It seems undesirable to include in the Bill the type of information suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East in amendments Nos. 56 and 57. As the hon. Member for Bristol, South rightly said, if such information were available to those seeking treatment, people could select or join a waiting list for particularly desirable donors.
9 pm
I shall deal more briefly than I intended with amendments Nos. 33, 31(A) and 60. They deal with the extent to which the information available to applicants might be changed in future. The Bill provides that the authority must give applicants certain information which will be specified in regulations to be made by the Secretary of State. It is the firm intention of the Government that the information given will tell the applicant something about the genetic parent, but not enough for him or her to be identified. The information given might include that which might be important for medical purposes or, where an applicant intends to marry, that which enables the authority to tell the applicant whether he or she is genetically related to the fiance or fiancee.
We strongly support the anonymity of donors for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Bristol, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). We have no intention of introducing regulations to allow that anonymity to be breached. It is true that circumstances may alter, so the Bill provides that the regulations can be changed. A later amendment provides that any regulations under clause 30 should be subject to affirmative rather than negative resolution. That will mean that both Houses of Parliament will have to give the matter thorough debate before regulations are made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) has yet to speak to his amendment. I apologise to him. I intended to wait until he had made his speech before I made mine. I thought that I had better stop the debate on new clause 11 before it went much further. My hon. Friend's amendment deals with the argument about whether people born as a result of IVF should have the right to know who their genetic parents are. To give them that right entails giving them information to enable them to identify the donor father. I have already said that we do not propose to provide that right in the regulations.
Although attitudes may change, I believe that it would be wrong to give people born as a result of IVF the right to know their genetic parents. In order to be brief, I shall not be repeating the arguments used by the hon. Member for Bristol, South and my hon. Friend the Member for

Salisbury. I strongly agree with both of them. I do not believe that it would be right to provide that right, although we shall leave it open to future alteration.
I agree with the hon. Member for Bristol, South that the circumstances of adoption, in which the House has agreed to allow access to information, are different from those of IVF. The relationship between someone who has been adopted and the natural parents who had to request that the child be adopted is different from the relationship, which in emotional terms is non-existent, between a child and a donor of sperm where the child was born by IVF.
I strongly believe that in the present climate most people accept that anonymity should be preserved. I emphasise that the House will decide the matter by a free vote. However, I believe that, although we are leaving the matter open to be changed in future, it would be wrong, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury said, to leave everyone who acts as a donor to proceed on the basis that the law might eventually be changed retrospectively.
Reference has already been made to the Swedish experience. It has been said that donors will be deterred by the possibility that at some time in future their names will be disclosed. I accept that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East said, there is evidence that some donors would not be deterred. However, that does not alter the position. It is not just a practical matter of whether one could persuade people to become donors. One must consider the interests of all the parties. I understand that some children may feel a compelling desire to know the man who donated the sperm. But that cannot be conclusive. One must visualise the position of the donor. Whatever he said when he donated the sperm, 20 years later he may have a family of his own. He may not wish to have a child, about whom he knows nothing, present himself or herself to him.
We must also consider the parents of the child. The mother probably did not want to have another man's child or to have any emotional relationship with some unknown medical student who donated the sperm. It could create fraught situations if a child who for some reason becomes excessively worried about his or her parentage in teenage or adult years is suddenly enabled to obtain information about the identity of the donor of the sperm many years before to the acute distress of parents, donor and everyone else involved.
For that reason, I am happy for the Bill to be drafted in such a way that if my opinion is rejected or the House changes its opinion by affirmative resolution, the anonymity of donors could be lifted. However, if we do not pass the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury, to which I added my name last night, there will be an element of doubt from now on. Everyone will have to be told that it is possible that a future Government could change the law by regulations or by primary law. I should feel happier if a Government were obliged to go through that hoop, but that is only my view.
I intervened at an earlier stage than I intended, and I shall now listen to other contributions, particularly that of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne who appears from his amendment to take a flatly contrary view. In the end, the House will have to make up its mind by, I am sure, a free vote on both sides.

Mr. Wigley: I am glad that the Secretary of State made his intervention before my brief contribution because he clarified the new clauses, yet I should have been happier if


there had been an opportunity to study certain aspects of them more fully. It is unfortunate that the new clauses come before us at a late point in the proceedings, denying us the opportunity to take advice, and that they have been grouped with amendment No. 56. That led to the Secretary of State having to make two speeches. I understand the difficulty that he is in, and I understand also the objectives of the new clauses. One can sympathise with them while at the same time being uncertain about how they will work out in practice.
Perhaps the Secretary of State will at least nod if I am right in saying that in no way do new clauses 11 and 12 mean that someone who has been inseminated to avoid giving birth to a disabled child, but whose embryo is then found to carry a disability that the recipient did not imagine it would carry by virtue of the screening, will be able to bring an action.

Mr. Clarke: While my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General applies his mind to that point, perhaps I may ascertain whether I have understood the hon. Gentleman's argument. Perhaps he is contemplating a case in which a carrier of haemophilia undergoes fertilisation treatment to ensure the selection of an embryo that is not carrying haemophilia. We discussed earlier the situation in which only female embryos are reimplanted. If a mistake were made, a male embryo was reimplanted and a child having haemophilia was born, I suspect that the parents would have a right of action. That is my off-the-cuff reaction. I do not think that the child would have a case. We are up against the same problem that was discussed earlier, of the child bringing an action to the effect that it should not have been allowed to be born.

Mr. Alton: That is what the Bill says.

Mr. Clarke: That is not what it says, with respect.
I cannot perceive of any action that could be brought on that basis. If the hon. Gentleman will proceed with his speech, perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will take a hand.

Mr. Wigley: I am sorry for raising such a difficult point so early, but perhaps it helps to do so. It appears that the clauses do not concern actions to be brought by the parents in respect of negligence against them but relate to negligence against the child itself. We are talking about different children—the handicapped and the non-handicapped foetus. Presumably they would be different entities in law, and would therefore involve different possibilities for action.

Mr. Clarke: We are dealing with actions brought by the child against the licence holders and the others named in the clause in respect of actions that they took which injured the parents and which in turn damaged the child.

Mr. Wigley: Quite so. Therefore, action can be taken only on behalf of a child who has had the opportunity to grow and develop from the early embryo or pre-embryo —a different child from the child who might have been born had a different embryo been selected in those early stages. An embryo that has not been selected clearly has no rights in law. That leads us to a fraught state of affairs in which it would appear that some embryos have rights in law, and we need to think the matter through carefully before we legislate. I am sure that the Government are introducing the proposals with the best of intentions, but

I wonder whether they have thought them through properly. Perhaps at a later stage we may be given the assurance that, by virtue of other provisions, parents will have a remedy in law if a mistake has been made in the selection of an embryo.

Mr. Clarke: Parents have all sorts of common law remedies against anybody who causes them injury, and the Bill does not affect that. Parents will certainly have the common law right of action against anyone who gives them medical treatment that causes them damage. There is no need for legislation to clarify that.

Mr. Wigley: The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) raised another matter connected with new clause 11. He asked about the interpretation of the words:
the parents knew the risk of their child being born disabled".
I suggest that knowledge of a risk is difficult to establish, and difficult to make the basis of action in law. Two questions arise. The first concerns the degree of risk; parents may have been led to believe that there is only an outside chance, for example. The second has to do with whether the parents understand the implications of the risk to which they are open. In the difficult world of medicine and disability, doctors may point out to parents, perhaps using a technical term of which they may never have heard, that there is a risk that their child may contract a certain condition—perhaps a fairly small risk, which may not have far-reaching implications. Suppose that the parents do not take that on board. In their desperate enthusiasm to have the child, they may not fully evaluate the risk, and that fact may exclude the possibility of an action later on.

Mr. Alton: I am following the argument closely and I strongly support much of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Suppose that parents are told that they run a risk of having a disabled child following IVF and subsequently refuse to have an amniocentesis test, because they know that that, too, might endanger the unborn child. Where does the negligence lie if the parents refuse to have that test?

Mr. Wigley: That raises interesting questions, not least because the amniocentesis test can, of course, endanger the mother as well as the child. The various factors will have to be balanced against each other. I hope that the Lords will be able to pursue those matters in considerable depth; we are clearly in difficulties tonight.
I had intended to refer mainly to rights of information —one of the most difficult questions that we have dealt with so far. Two important and conflicting interests arise and we cannot meet both fully: the first is the right of the child and the second is the right of the donor. I suspect that most people's instinct would be that we should give the child all the rights that we can. But if we try to give the child all possible rights, that child may not come into existence because the donor might be frightened away. We know of that from the experience in Sweden and it has been suggested in much of the correspondence that we have received. As the Secretary of State said, we must strike a balance. At what point do we accept that there is a limit, and up to what limit should we give information to the child about his or her background?
The Secretary of State tried to address a question that worries the House, although I must say that I am still not absolutely clear about it. Suppose that we leave the door open, by way of the regulations on which the Secretary of


State proposes to rely, for further action to be taken on this matter in future. Is my interpretation of the Secretary of State's remarks correct? Am I right in thinking that if there is a change—by way of affirmative resolution or in primary legislation—there is no way in which we shall be able to guarantee that it will not have a retrospective effect? After all, if such backdating occurred, it could affect those who have already acted as donors or those who might act as donors between now and the time at which that change is made. The Secretary of State would say that the House cannot bind itself, so there will always be a risk. But I hope that he will find means of giving the maximum assurance to donors that they will not find themselves in a retroactive position, whereby their identity is made known.

Mr. Clarke: Amendment No. 60 gives the maximum assurance because it provides that regulations cannot be retrospective. For the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has given, we simply cannot say that no subsequent House will not pass retrospective primary legislation. We cannot guarantee that a future House will not pass legislation saying that one red-headed man in three should be beheaded, but it is highly unlikely. By passing the amendment, we are making it clear that we do not contemplate regulations under the Bill being retrospective; indeed, we shall rule that out. If a future Parliament wanted to make the Bill retrospective, it would have to start from square one.

Mr. Wigley: I hope that it will be understood that the maximum safeguard is being given.
I revert to new clause 12 and the courts dealing with cases in which identification may be necessary to a limited extent. I hope that potential donors can be assured that, although it may be necessary for their identity to be known to certain people within the courts, there will be provision for hearings in camera and for reporting restrictions to safeguard their identity. This is a difficult issue—I suspect that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) will put an opposite viewpoint in a moment—in which the interests of the child must be paramount to the interests of the donor.
I rest on the point that I made a moment ago: unless we have donors we shall not have children. We must be careful not to allow this matter to start drying up, if that is not an unfortunate phrase, to ensure that those who want children can have them and that, in our anxiety to safeguard the rights of the child to information, we do not, inadvertently perhaps, lead to fewer children being born and fewer parents being helped by IVF treatment.

Mr. Wilshire: As you have been elsewhere on your duties, Mr. Speaker, when you read Hansard in the morning you will discover that you have missed one of the better seminars on the more obscure parts of legal liability. Whether you will find it helpful I leave you to judge when you read it.
Hon. Members who are mere mortals rather than lawyers tend to stick to things that we think we understand. I therefore have nothing to say about the niceties of the new clauses. I want to speak to the amendment that I tabled—amendment No. 31A—which,

as the Secretary of State rightly predicted, seeks to give those who have reached the age of 18, once they have been given a chance to receive counselling, the absolute right to all the information held about them on a register.
I find myself in an unfortunate position. I disagree with the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo), and having spent about an hour in the same Lobby as her earlier, that grieves me somewhat. I also disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), and that upsets me equally because I spent much time helping him with the admirable work that he has done on other parts of the Bill.
It is probably foolhardy of me to disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, but nevertheless I shall. My case is essentially simple: I cannot accept that it is right to withhold from people information about themselves that others know, especially when that information concerns the unique genetic identity of the seeker.
The hon. Member for Bristol, South said that people's curiosity did not go that far, but, if the amendment were accepted, I believe that there would be ample evidence that it does—and such curiosity should be satisfied. People seeking information about themselves will quickly discover that the information is obtainable—after all, others will know. In certain circumstances, the Bill will give people the right to ask whether they have been produced as a result of treatment, and whether they are related to someone whom they are going to marry. Ergo, they will know that there is information about their genetic parents.
If I understood the seminar correctly, new clause 12 confirms the argument that I am making: that it may be necessary—albeit in only one case—to tell one group of people who are their genetic parents. If it is good for one person, in my book it is good enough for everyone.

Ms. Harman: How far would the hon. Gentleman take that argument? If a child were the result of incest, one group of people would know that. In those circumstances, does the hon. Gentleman think that that child should be told? Let us suppose that the child was not the child of its apparent father, and that the mother knew but the "father" did not. Should the child be told? It is a complicated issue. The way in which the hon. Gentleman is dealing with the question makes it seem simpler than it is.

Mr. Wilshire: I believe that all children should be told the truth, whatever that may be.

Mrs. Currie: No, you do not.

Mr. Wilshire: Yes, I do.

Mrs. Currie: What my hon. Friend is suggesting is horrendous: that, whatever the truth about a child—however grievous and whatever the pain that it might cause to the child—he child should still be told the truth. Does not that elevate the truth above everything else in society, including people's happiness?

Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, but not a good one. The problem is that, if people choose not to tell a child the truth, some may assume that that is the end of the matter. If one does not tell a child the truth, and it then finds out, one compounds the lie when the child asks why it was deceived in the first place

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Is not it sufficient, from the point of view of truthfulness, to be told that one's birth was the result of a donation by an unknown man who—for humanitarian reasons—never had a relationship with one's mother, and who then vanished from the scene? I find it impossible to argue that the child has a compelling right to know more than that and to trace the anonymous figure who carried out that humanitarian act many years before.

Mr. Wilshire: I do not think that that is adequate. We are referring to the origins of the unique genetic characteristics of a person. Simply to be told that there is someone who was one's genetic mother or father does not go far enough.
I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East because the information that I want disclosed is that which is already provided for. I should be unhappy if additional information were put into the register. It is sufficient to say that a child can find out who its genetic parents are and leave that child to make its own inquiries if it wants. My hon. Friend's amendment does not appeal to me.
I should like to face up to the objections, which are coming thick and fast. There might have been a legal seminar before, but I now think that I am perhaps in the dock being examined with a view to being found innocent, or guilty, of being naive. If I have a chance to force my amendment to a Division, no doubt the House will tell me its judgment.
The objection that harm will be caused to the child has been raised already. What are we saying will cause that harm? The truth? The child will know easily enough that its social parents are not its genetic parents. Knowing one's social parents is only half the equation. The experience with adoption has been cited. I accept the comment of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State that there are some significant differences between adoption and being born as a result of donation. But the experience of the child who is adopted is relevant.
Not many children who have been adopted want to know about their parents, so we are not necessarily saying that everyone's curiosity will be aroused. To that extent, the hon. Member for Bristol, South is correct. However, a significant minority of children who are adopted wish to know about their parents. All the evidence that I have seen suggests that the children who seek that information are not harmed by knowing more about themselves, but would appear to benefit from it. What evidence there is is a plus to my argument, not a minus.

Mr. Alton: I hope that I do not do the hon. Gentleman's case too much harm by saying that I, for one, certainly agree with much of what he said. Does he accept that it is important that those who donate the sperm accept that they are entering into something other than the type of irresponsible relationship that some have suggested? The Secretary of State talked about a medical student being able to clear off for the rest of his life and never thinking about what he did. Does not that reduce the position of parenthood?

Mr. Wilshire: The hon. Gentleman is not harming my case; he is just stealing part of my speech. I totally agree with him.
It has been suggested that children might not know what they are doing when they ask about their parents. That is why my amendment states that they should be offered counselling first. The potential risk would be explained. That is exactly the position taken with adopted children who seek more information. I believe that that is how the risk should be approached.
Another objection that has been voiced concerns the wishes of the parents. It was suggested that if parents knew that the genetic origins of the child were known, the numbers of parents seeking this treatment might fall. I do not believe that that is sufficient justification. People have a choice. If we elevate the wishes and preferences of parents above those of the child, we have the whole matter out of balance.
I said earlier that the child should know the truth. What would parents be afraid of in allowing the child to have the information? Would they be afraid of a child's knowing the truth? Would parents wish the state to help them live a lie?

Mrs. Currie: It happens all the time.

Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend says that it happens all the time. Yes, but it is not a function of the state to legislate to help that happen. If individual families want to do that, I should defend their right to do so, while disagreeing with them. But we in the House should not be legislating to enable people to live lies and withhold information from children. It is as straightforward as that.

Mr. Thurnham: There is a very real difficulty in that. The National Association for the Childless has said that many of its members would not wish to have a child if they had to divulge the fact that the child was a donor child and reveal its identity, as my hon. Friend's amendment provides. Does not he feel that that is a factor and that it might lead to some couples going abroad to obtain treatment and then returning to this country so as to avoid being caught by this legislation?

Mr. Wilshire: Happily, we do not legislate for what happens elsewhere. If people decide to leave the country for treatment, I defend their right to do so. The fact that others may have legislation that I do not like is no reason for allowing that to occur here. Points of order were raised in the House this afternoon in a different context— on the sovereignty of the House and the right of this nation to have its own laws.
Would fewer parents take advantage of this? As for myself, due to certain events, I have had cause in my family life to regret what has happened to me. I should not wish that on anyone else. It is a rough world in which we live. Some people cannot have children unless they take advantage of this treatment. It has physical, social, moral and theological implications. We cannot escape from them. We should not allow people to escape from facing up to the responsibilities of the treatment. If couples decide that the only way to have a child is to have treatment but they are unable to face up to the child knowing about it, then—in the rough old world in which we live—I fear that they have to live with it. I say that, having had a rough time myself, not out of callousness for other people. It is a matter of fact.
The other argument that parents may advance is that children may feel that they are unwanted and unloved,


should they discover the truth. The exact opposite would be the case. If one's social parents have gone to all the trouble, expense, pain and anguish to have a child, what greater demonstration could there be of being wanted and loved than that? That is an advantage rather than a disadvantage. One could be proud to be able to tell one's child about his or her background.
As for the donors, the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said that it all comes down to the question of the rights of the donor as against the rights of the child. It is not as simple as that. The donor can choose to be a donor. However, the resulting child has no choice. When there is choice on one side but not on the other, I come down firmly on the side of the person who has no choice: the child.
The question of whether there will be fewer or no donors does not stand up to critical examination. I have seen both sides of the case deduced from the experience in Sweden and New Zealand. I do not know what to make of that. What is relevant is research that has been done by King's College hospital. In 1989 that hospital received 100 inquiries from would-be sperm donors. Of the 100, 30 were accepted on clinical grounds. Of those accepted, 12 were happy to be identified and eight felt that they would be willing to consider it further, if a request were made.
That does not suggest to me that it would be impossible to maintain a sperm bank if my amendment were passed. If there were fewer donors, the important question to ask is: why? The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) made that point. Is it that people do not want publicity? Do they want it to be a secret? If so, it might be thought that they are ashamed of what they are doing. Should we legislate for that? It also means that those people do not want the consequences of their action turning up on the doorstep 20 years later. However, that is admitting that there are consequences. We are talking not about blood donation, but about the donation of the unique individuality of a child.
Donors cannot say, "I do not want to know anything about that", because it is there for the future. If that child were to find out—even if we legislated against it—there could still be a knock on the door, so the person who is the source of the gametes should be proud enough to say, "I was not ashamed of what I was doing. I knew what I was doing and I would do it again. I am in no way socially involved, but I am your genetic parent." If someone cannot face up to that, he should not be encouraged to become involved in the process.

Dame Jill Knight: My hon. Friend may recall that the House gave adopted children that right, whether or not their parents cared about them turning up on the doorstep. It seems odd to force parents who have given up their child for adoption to face the fact that that child might one day turn up, yet we do not give a child produced by artificial medical means the same right. Surely that is a strange thing for the House to fail to do.

Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend and I have had many discussions about why we keep voting in different Lobbies. Therefore, it is a pleasure to say that I agree 100 per cent. with the point that she is making. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we should not make such a distinction because in both cases we are dealing with an individual

child who should have the right to know. Whether parents are giving up a child for adoption or donating gametes, some of those people will one day have to face the consequences of that, whether they like it or not. I do not believe that we should be legislating for those people to live a lie.
I heard again the argument that several years later a donor may have a partner and may not wish that partner to know. If we allowed for that we should be legislating for that donor to live a lie and conceal information. If someone is planning to become a donor, he should be counselled that that might happen and then he should take a positive decision one way or the other. If he is prepared for a partner to know, he should go ahead, and if he does not feel that he could share that knowledge with a partner, he should not become involved in donation. The donors should have to make that choice and we should not legislate to help people live a lie.
Having gone through all the arguments, I fall back on my first point, which clinches it for me whatever other people may say—how would I feel if I discovered that people somewhere had information about me which the state said I was not entitled to have? I should feel a deep sense of outrage, that information which is personal and unique to me was not available to me. What right have doctors or Members of Parliament to withhold such information?

Mrs. Currie: First, let me express my unease about the amendments on the anonymity of donors tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) and for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and my approval of amendment No. 60 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), which would be an excellent improvement to the Bill. The amendments that have been debated would change the Bill quite radically. I consider that the parts of the Bill dealing with the anonymity of donors are extremely good, and emerged from Committee unchanged.
In my view, only limited information should be recorded and made available to satisfy one important problem which overrides the issue of anonymity— the question of possible genetic linkage between future potential partners. It seems sensible, therefore, that a person should be able to ask the authorities which are holding that information in future two questions: "Am I the product of assisted fertilisation under the provisions of this Bill?— answer yes or no"; and: "Am I related to the person whom I wish to marry or have as my partner? — answer yes or no." That means that the information must be kept, and of course it is possible that the procedure might be changed in future. That is why amendment No. 60 should be accepted, because it protects the people operating under the law as it stands.
However, there are serious practical considerations which we must bear in mind if we are to change the law in the way proposed by the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Spelthorne and for Bolton, North-East. The number of donors would be cut. If anonymity is not guaranteed and is not the norm, many people will simply not come forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne was right to talk about accepting responsibility and facing consequences. If we were to insist that donors had to accept responsibility and face


consequences, large numbers of donors would say, "Thank you very much, but no thank you." They would not be available.
I accept that the hospitals are rather divided on the issue of anonymity. I know that at least one of our most senior advanced and experienced hospitals in the area has said that at least as many as a dozen of its donors would be perfectly content to have details recorded. However, I feel uneasy at the thought that we might then be relying on a much smaller donor bank or a smaller group of people who would be prepared to act as donors.
As IVF becomes more successful, as I am sure it will be now that research will be permitted under the Bill, so many thousands more people will come forward requiring that care and treatment. Perhaps as many as 4,000 patients passing through two or three major clinics might take their gametes from only a handful of donors—who we must remember will include women donors as well as men—and that is what we are trying to avoid by encouraging and enabling assisted fertilisation, particularly for families who have problems with handicap. We should not amend the Bill in that way, because that would be a great risk.

Mr. Thurnham: It is accepted practice that no donor should be used for the creation of more than 10 children, and no one is suggesting that that should change. In practice, King's College hospital and Hammersmith hospital have found that the kind of donors who would come forward if identification were allowed would be middle-aged married people who had already had children, rather than medical students. I do not believe that there are fewer middle-aged, married people than medical students. In fact, there are probably more of them.

Mrs. Currie: I read the correspondence that was offered to members of the Committee. However, I do not believe that we should do anything that would reduce the number of donors who would come forward. If there was a well publicised case in which a donor was identified and appeared on the front page of The Sunand everywhere else, the number of donors would drop sharply. That would reduce the assistance to infertile families that the Bill is designed to create. I do not believe that that is a good idea.
My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, when speaking to amendment No. 31A, was kind enough to allow me to intervene and put the case for harmony rather than absolute truth. We are bound to disagree on that point. However, one of the essences of the argument about the anonymity of donors is the question of what the child would do with the information. Why does the child want that information? The state should take a view that a child should not go on a fishing expedition. The child should simply not be allowed to satisfy its curiosity. That is not in the public interest. It may not be in the child's interest either, or in the interests of the donor. It is not in the public interest for a child to embark on that type of curiosity-satisfying exercise.

Mr. Wilshire: I suggest that my hon. Friend and I might just fundamentally disagree on my next point: I do not accept that it is for people like me to prove that a child should have the information; it is for my hon. Friend to prove that the child should not have it. If she is going to argue that the House knows best what is good for a child, we will be pursuing the nanny state avenue once more

Mrs. Currie: That is what we are elected to decide; that is what we are here to vote on, and it places a great burden on us all.
Another point leads me to think that my hon. 'Friend's amendment would open up another minefield of difficulties. There are people who would seek that information for reasons that none of us would find palatable. Let us suppose that the amendment is accepted and that a child born as a result of a donation finds that his father or mother is very wealthy. That may lead to financial and moral blackmail for the donor.
There are people who wish to perform humanitarian acts, but to do so anonymously. They do not wish to see news of what they have done spread all over the front pages—for very good reasons. That applies especially to women who may donate eggs at a time of great distress. If, for example, a woman is being sterilised, she may wish to donate her remaining eggs. However, that does not mean that, 20 years on, she wants somebody rolling up on the doorstep saying, "I know all about what happened and I am going to tell everybody."

Sir Hugh Rossi: I wish to raise a small legal point which I hope is not facetious. The identity of the natural parent— the donor—can be important in certain circumstances. The Bill deals clearly with inheritance, stating that there is no legal right against the estate of the donor, whoever that donor may be. However, perhaps my hon. Friend will consider what happens with life insurance. An applicant has to answer whether there is any history of heart disease or of other diseases on either his father's or mother's side of the family. That has nothing to do with the inheritance of the legal estate; it relates to the inheritance of one's genes. How, eventually, does such a child—in adulthood—answer such questions directly and honestly so as to receive the right cover?

Mrs. Currie: Given that one third of all men in this country have heart attacks before the age of 65, the odds are that the answer is "yes" without the applicant having to look up the identity of his or her father.

Sir Hugh Rossi: It was not a facetious question, but that is a facetious answer.

Mrs. Currie: It is not a facetious answer.
However, that point brings me to the new clauses. My hon. Friend is right that there are circumstances in which a child may wish to know about his birth, over and above questions 1 and 2 that I outlined earlier. That principle —anonymity—is breached in the new clauses. Broadly speaking, the House has already accepted that it is entirely appropriate that such a child should have the same rights as other children to sue negligent doctors. The circumstances are covered by new clauses 11 and 12 and seem entirely sensible.
The provisions mean that doctors involved in IVF are not protected by anonymity from any case of negligence that is brought against them. I would not wish those doctors to receive that protection, any more than I want other doctors to receive such protection. I am content with that. In such cases, there is a higher obligation than absolute anonymity. However, if the current legislation is so obscure, one wonders how many times it has been used since 1976 and whether it is worth all this hassle tonight.
New clause 13 also opens up difficult questions. I was glad that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said that the provisions will be considered in some detail and that more comments may be made in another place. New clause 13 presents the possibility of the donor being sued by a disabled child. I heard what my right hon. and learned Friend said about not being able to conceive of any circumstances in which that might happen, but in that case, why bother with new clause 13? If something cannot happen, do not include a new clause about it.
However, this could happen under new clause 13—I can think of several circumstances. We now know that alcoholism can produce handicap in an unborn child. Supposing the questions asked by the clinic relate to genetic defects and the donor does not realise that he or she is an alcoholic, under new clause 13 would it be possible at some point in the future for the handicapped child to sue the donor? I believe that it might. That issue needs to be clarified.
As far as I understand it, there is no principle in English law—I cannot speak for Scottish law, but there is no principle in the law that covers my constituency—that a child can sue his ordinary parents for the genes passed on to him. None of us are responsible for our genes, but the act of donation is a different matter because it is a conscious decision. As I understand new clause 13, there might be grounds for regarding that as a case where suing would be possible.
It may be that there are good grounds for new clause 13, and I think that there are. It will mean that there is a tremendous obligation on donors not to donate unless they are sure that they carry no genetic problems. That is probably a very good thing. It may push IVF families to go to good licensed premises where donors are screened. That too is a good thing. It will certainly mean that clinics must have excellent procedures for screening and asking the right sort of questions. That is also a good thing.
I can see that there may be circumstances in which it may be appropriate to ask questions where a genetic defect has turned up much later which is not life-threatening. There are many examples, and perhaps glaucoma is a good one. The defect may be present in other related members of the genetic family, and it might be appropriate for that information to be made available. It is right that that information should be available through the courts, and it is right that there should be circumstances in which we can put on record our slight uneasiness that the clause could leave open the possibility of other types of case arising that are not so much in the public interest.
The tragedy of proving or disproving negligence in such cases is that the facts and information would have to be produced in court. When that happens, the damage is done. Even in cases which are thrown out because there is no case, the damage is done and anonymity is breached. That is the position even if the case is heard in camera and there are reporting restrictions. Although I am content with new clauses 11 and 12, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench will take a careful look at new clause 13 to decide whether it does what the Government want it to do in precisely the circumstances that they have in mind.
My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley

Hill (Mr. Alton), who is no longer in the Chamber, talked about whether doctors would be deterred from implanting damaged embryos. I offer the House my personal view. I hope that doctors do not implant damaged embryos—

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

Mrs. Currie: I shall finish my sentence first.
I hope that doctors do not implant damaged embryos, precisely because many families that come for IVF have been through the misery of having handicapped children already. One of the reasons that they come for IVF is to try to ensure that they have the chance of a healthy child in future. To say that we should encourage doctors to implant damaged embryos is something that most people would find difficult to accept.

Mrs. Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, because it is plain that what I said in an intervention was not clear. My hon. Friend has misread the point that I was trying to make.
I appreciate that, because of IVF, no one will implant a damaged embryo that will grow to become a handicapped child. That part of the screening-out process is obvious for one and all. What happens, however, if the foetus develops a handicap naturally, and it is not possible to prove or disprove where it came from? Will that child, when it is born or later in life, not have the right to sue the doctor who, by the technique of IVF, gave it life in the first place? I think that my hon. Friend will find that it is a difficult question to answer and that the issue is unclear.

Mrs. Currie: That is not what I understood my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Mossley Hill to be saying. I reiterate that it seems that, to have a sound and successful IVF service, which many of us want, there must be really good screening of donors, excellent keeping of records—that is entirely right and appropriate—and the taking of every aspect of care.

Mrs. Winterton: indicated dissent.

Mrs. Currie: My hon. Friend shakes her head at me, but I am offering my point of view, as she offered the House hers.
It seems that damaged children at some stage in the future should, by the new clauses, have the right to sue those who were responsible in the clinics for their creation, and would have to prove that there was some negligence. I do not think that chance would give the right to sue in the way that my hon. Friend has described. I am not a lawyer, and I am not introducing the new clauses. I am content to make comments on the amendments and new clauses.
I am reluctant to do anything which makes life harder for donors or for families needing donation. That should be the principle behind the Bill and the way in which we vote tonight.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: This has been an absolutely fascinating debate. There have been some good speeches representing both sides of the argument. Because the hour is late and I hope to speak on another of my amendments, I shall be brief. I shall comment on some of the amendments tabled, but not on the new clauses on which I have already said enough.
It gives me great pleasure to gallop down the aisle on my bright charger to the aid of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and to share the


high moral ground with him on his amendment about divulging information to children who are conceived by the medical technique of artificial insemination. I agree with the line taken in amendments Nos. 56, 57 and 33.
The child should have the right to the information recorded by the authority. The child should have a right to know its genetic background for insurance or health reasons. The child should have the right to know that when he or she marries it will not be to his half sister or her half brother. The child should have the right to know the identity of its donor father, just as an adoptive child does. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) made a pertinent intervention on just that matter.
All those good arguments fall on stony ground because of one pertinent omission: how is the child conceived by artificial insemination to know that it has been conceived in that way? There is no reason whatever why the parents should tell the child. An adopted child knows that it is adopted. The best advice given to adoptive parents is to tell the child as soon as possible that it has been adopted. The child accepts that and all is well. In the fullness of time he or she may wish to trace the natural parents, but few do because most accept the parents with whom they have grown up as their parents.
The child conceived by artificial insemination will never know that, for the simple reason that the name of his or her social father will appear on the birth certificate under the heading "Father", whereas the words "By donor" should appear. Therefore, there is no reason why parents should tell the child. That is wrong. Yet in its wisdom or otherwise, the Committee rejected the proposition that that should be on the birth certificate.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne said in his powerful speech, that means that the child is living a lie. All the amendments are as of nothing because they cannot be sprung into life for the simple reason that the child will not necessarily be told how it was brought into the world. That is a sad omission.

Miss Widdecombe: This is not a speech so much as a request to the Secretary of State for clarification. May I please have a verbal communication from him about whether I have understood his position on new clause 11 correctly? I understand that he believes that the new clause does not mean that if a defective embryo is implanted, that, per se, means that the child can sue if it is born disabled. There must be some compounding act of negligence.
Secondly, will the Secretary of State look again at the clause, and if there is the slightest chance of ambiguity —bearing in mind that it is not Parliament's intentions but the wording of the law that is taken into account in the courts—will it be put right in another place? Have I correctly understood those two points?

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: My answer to the first point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) is yes, that is my belief, which I think is shared by my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, who sat through the debate. If, on reflection, we discover that we are wrong, we shall write and tell my hon. Friend immediately. I also give the undertaking she calls for that we shall readdress ourselves

to the drafting with an open mind. I give that undertaking on behalf of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, who will handle the matter when it returns to the other place.

Amendment negatived.

It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Lords Amendments to the Aviation and Maritime Security Bill, the Motion relating to Procedure (Future Taxation) (No. 2) and the Ways and Means Motions relating to Gifts to charity, Paired shares and Levy on port privatisations may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour —[Mr. Wood.]

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords.]

Mr. Thurnham: I beg to move amendment No. 34, in page 6, line 43, at end insert
'but the person responsible for maintaining the records may apply to the Authority for records maintained in pursuance of a licence to be lodged with the Authority before the expiry of such period'.
I shall comment only briefly on the amendment, and I do not wish to press it to a Division. We raised the issue in Committee. People involved in running clinics have raised with me the problems that might arise if their clinics had to go out of business or they had problems with keeping records for a long period. The Bill places the responsibility for keeping records on the individual clinic, but there could be circumstances in which the clinic found that it was unable to carry out that duty and was fearful of being liable for large financial and other consequences.
This is an administrative item that could be dealt with in regulations. If my hon. Friend the Minister for Health could state that this will be satisfactorily dealt with in regulations, it would allay the fears of those people running clinics. They are worried that they would face responsibilities that they could not easily fulfil if the licensing authority were to adhere strictly to the words of the Bill. It would be better if we could keep the Bill simple and leave those points to be dealt with in regulations.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend. Clause 13(4) states:
No information shall be removed from any records maintained in pursuance of the licence before the expiry of such period as may be specified
by the authority. The amendment seeks to ensure that the person responsible for maintaining the records may apply to the authority for the records to be lodged with it before the expiry of the period stated in the direction.
I understand that clinics seeking licences may be concerned lest they are required physically to retain records about patients who have received licensed treatments for an unreasonably long time. When a centre wishes to close, that may pose problems. When considering the amendment it will be helpful to draw a distinction between the physical records and information contained in them. The authority will not necessarily wish to receive the physical records, but it will wish to receive the information contained in them. The Bill makes it clear that it is necessary for the authority to be provided with information about treatment. It can also issue directions about the information about storage and research that must be retained.
Under clause 24(2) it is a condition of every licence that information should be recorded and given to the authority about each of the matters listed in clause 13(2)(a) to (e). It will be for the authority to decide how frequently it wishes to receive the information. The fact that information is passed to the authority will not mean that the information ceases to exist at a licensed centre. We envisage that a centre will keep its physical records and pass the information contained in them to the authority. Therefore, the information would continue to exist in two places unless the centre were to close. That is what concerns my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham).
The provisions of the Bill are already sufficient to ensure that the authority can obtain all the information that it needs. If a centre wishes to apply to the authority for information before the time laid down in directions, perhaps because the centre is having difficulty with the storage of its records, it will be free to do so.
There is no need for an amendment on this matter. It will be dealt with through administrative arrangements between the authority and the various centres. If a centre were to close there would be no difficulty about passing the physical records to another centre or to the authority itself. I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend and those who have raised this matter with me. We do not think that further safeguards are necessary.

Amendment negatived.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: I beg to move amendment No. 20, in page 6, leave out lines 45 to 47 and insert—

'(a) any child who may be born as a result of the treatment will have a father by virtue of section 28 of this Act, and
(b) account has been taken of the welfare of any such child, and of any other child who may be affected by the birth.'.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 18, in page 6, line 46, after 'treatment', insert '(including the need of that child for a father).

No. 19, in clause 25, page 14, line 19, after 'services', insert '(including a child's need for a father)'.

Mrs. Winterton: I shall not delay the House for long because there is still much business before us. I have tabled the amendment because the interests of the child in matters of artificial insemination should be paramount. That term has been used most successfully in the Children Act 1989.
I welcome the possible initiatives that have been announced by the Government to ensure that divorced fathers or fathers who have deserted the family are made responsible for supporting their children. It is right that fathers should pay towards the support of the children they have sired.
A child who is born as a result of a technique such as artificial insemination will obviously have the benefit of a mother, but should also have the benefit of a father. In my heart of hearts, I should prefer it if those coming forward for this treatment were married couples or couples in a long-standing stable relationship. However, I understand that the definition is extremely difficult. Single women who present themselves for artificial insemination by donor

should not be allowed to be inseminated unless they are prepared to bring forward a man who will stand as the social father.
At the time of the treatment, that social father would enter into an agreement by saying that throughout the life of the child he would be responsible for it in financial and other ways in the same way as a natural father. That would be right for the child and would give it a home and stability when it was growing up. It is extremely important that a child's sense of security and identity are assured when it has been conceived by an artificial medical technique.
For those reasons and many others which I am sure will emerge in the debate, I ask the House to support the amendment.

Mr. David Blunkett: I am speaking to amendments Nos. 18 and 19: I want to make that clear so that there is no misunderstanding.
First, I must pick up some of the words used by the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) and correct a misunderstanding which appears to be prevalent throughout the country. Many single parents have been deserted by the father, who for a variety of reasons has not taken responsibility for his fatherhood. However, that does not include the vast majority of people who are separated or divorced, whatever the circumstances, but are not a single parent family—according to my definition—but a family which is separated. The father and the mother, each hopefully in the best circumstances, endeavour to provide a loving home for the children.
I want to put that on record because the hon. Lady, perhaps inadvertently, referred to them in a way that hon. Members have referred to them this week when talking about modest Government changes in the provision of maintenance. I also put it on record because, when debating amendments 18 and 19 and the associated issues, it is important to separate out what some people have said in the past on social and sexual issues—including hon. Members who tabled amendments 18, 19 and 20.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: I do not want to cast aspersions on the role of single parents bringing up families, and if I have given that impression I wish to correct it. Many single parents, as the hon. Gentleman has hinted, have been left in circumstances that they would never have wished upon themselves. They are doing a splendid job of bringing up their families. The point that I was seeking to make was that, when using technique like artificial insemination, a father should present himself along with the mother, so that a social father is provided for the child.

Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's clarification, which leads me to my next point. I accept that fathers have a direct responsibility for the maintenance, well-being and love of their children, and that that should be achieved whenever possible. That is why I want to be absolutely sure that we avoid language or attitudes which foster discrimination or inflame hurt or prejudice.
Also, we must consider the frontiers that we are extending in the Bill, and recognise the enormous responsibility that we have for children. We must consider them as much as we consider the wishes of adults. There is also the responsibility for the stability of society and the impact that our choices will have on future generations. Those are difficult and profound issues, which cannot be dealt with by prejudiced or political stances which dub


those people who have doubts and questions as antagonistic to other rights and issues concerning relationships, sexuality or public policy.
There is nothing wrong with not having children. No stain or ignominy is involved. They are a product of love, not of science. When we are considering the issue, we have to be clear about the situation in which children are brought into the world. It is clear that, when the egg is fertilised by the husband's sperm, either by IVF or directly in the woman—that would apply also to the partner of the woman concerned—and, despite my difficulties in coming to terms with it, it is also true when there is a properly regulated and controlled fertilisation through a donor in a loving relationship, where it is the wish of both partners.
That is not the same as when past abuse by men of women as a convenience is translated by some women into the same use of men as a convenience. Reproduction is not a cold, clinical, scientific operation—nor are children the property or goods of someone for their convenience or satisfaction.
People have an absolute right to be themselves, to reject contact with men or to shun any physical contact with them. That is their choice. But that is not the same as accepting that there is some automatic or inalienable right to child bearing. Child bearing is not a right. It is part of the unfathomable life force. That is why man and woman together must take responsibility for the well-being and love of the child. In so saying, I believe that that right cannot be extended in a way that suggests to people that as individuals they can make that choice without understanding those deep, often dangerous, but difficult choices.

Mr. Wilshire: I rise with some trepidation to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). Indeed, I am the person in whose name amendments Nos. 18 and 19 are tabled. The hon. Gentleman was right to make two basic points before coming to the substance of his speech. I shall deal with both of them first so that, I hope, we can agree.
I made it clear in Committee that my heart goes out to people who find themselves bringing up children as single parents through no fault of their own. I intend nothing that will hurt them and I hope that I shall say nothing that will cause offence to people who find themselves in that predicament. Equally, the hon. Gentleman was right to caution against language and attitudes that cause hurt. It was for that reason that I tabled amendments Nos. 18 and 19 and that is why I believe and hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) will understand why I could not vote for amendment No. 20.
Amendment No. 20 covers ground that we went over in Committee. I tabled an amendment along much the same lines. I wish that the Committee had accepted it, but it did not. I am prepared to accept that that was the decision of the House and I do not seek to reopen that debate. I tabled my two amendments to do something different. I tabled them not to add anything new to the Bill, which is what amendment No. 20 would do and what I attempted to do in Committee, but simply to clarify the legislation so that there is no doubt whatever about the real meaning, as claimed by the Government, of clause 13(5). That part of

clause 13 was added to the Bill in another place in response to a great deal of pressure to take account of the rights and welfare of a child who will result from treatment.
As the Bill has progressed through both Houses we have heard a great deal, quite properly, about the rights of women. I fully support that. My two amendments would not automatically bar anyone from seeking treatment or being given treatment. It is important that we see the difference between these amendments and amendment No. 20 and what has been suggested elsewhere. On this occasion I seek to clarify clause 13. Before we go any further, let us be clear exactly what clause 13(5) says:
A woman shall not be provided with treatment services unless account has been taken of the welfare of any child who may be born as a result of the treatment".
I stress the words "account has been taken". We need to go slightly further than that to understand what amendments Nos. 18 and 19 are all about. We need not only to understand what we think is the meaning of the clause but to consider what my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor said that it meant when he was seeking to add it to the Bill in another place:
Among the factors that clinicians should take into account will be the material circumstances in which the child is likely to be brought up and also the stability and love which he or she is likely to enjoy. Such stability is clearly linked to the material position of the woman and in particular whether a husband or long-term partner can play a full role in providing the child with a permanent family setting in the fullest sense of that term, including financial provision."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 March 1990; Vol. 516, c. 1098.]
He was rightly identifying that stability and love are key considerations when considering how best to protect the welfare of the child. He equally rightly pointed out that the family unit is at the heart of that source of stability and love. We must be clear beyond all doubt—and this is the purpose of my amendment—what is meant by "family" in that context.
For me, the word "family" means three things. It means the family as a social unit, a financial unit, and a biological unit. As to the family being a social unit, I repeat the warning that I gave in Commitee that, when we talk about social units and social issues in such a context, we all need to be careful not to foist our theological views on others. When speaking of the family as a social unit, we must not drag our personal theologies into that line of thought.
When speaking of the family in this context, we are seeking to speak up for the traditional values and standards of society that have stood us in good stead for a long time. It is clear to me that the traditional social family unit in this country is, for better or worse, a unit of a mother and a father in a stable, long-term relationship. That value and standard is deeply embedded in our culture. It is not a coincidence that it is deeply embedded. It is a tried and tested way of giving a child the best possible start in his or her life. We tinker with that social unit at our peril.
As to the family being a financial unit, my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor made it clear that it is proper to consider financial background when deciding the welfare of a child. It is clear also that looking after a young child requires the combined efforts of two people. If one refers to the evidence provided by those who are often referred to as the new poor, figuring largely among them are the single mums with their young children who look desperately to the state to provide the financial security that they need to be able to cope. That should serve as a


warning if we are tempted to tinker with the family unit as we know it, and not take account of the financial arguments.
Again, the involvement of two adults is a tried and tested way of bringing up a child. I hope that no one disputes that one of the key responsibilities of a family is to provide for the child's material welfare. Again, we tinker at our peril with the concept of a family as a financial unit that needs two people.
As to the family being a biological unit, whatever else we may say, however clever we might become, and however much science might advance, we cannot avoid the facts of life. They are blindingly clear. We as a species are social animals. We require social structures in order to survive. To reproduce, we still need mothers and fathers—

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: Particularly mothers.

Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend says, "Particularly mothers," but, fortunately, fathers still have a role to play in the process somewhere. It is important that we should make it clear that the father's role does not begin and end at conception. Both biologically and socially, it goes further than that. In the human species, motherhood places a tremendous restriction on the freedom of action and freedom of movement of the mother because the child takes a long time to become independent. However much we may advance, we cannot get away from that. The father has a continuing role to play, and that must be integral to the decision about what is best for the welfare of any child who may result from one of the processes dealt with by the Bill.
The amendment seeks only to clarify what the Bill says. The Bill says that the child's welfare must be considered and it says that a father is an essential part of that consideration. What the Bill does not say, however, is what the outcome of that consideration must be. My amendments seek to make it crystal clear that a father is socially and financially desirable, that he is biologically essential at the beginning and that he remains biologically desirable for a long time after conception. The Bill should recognise that fact, as the Lord Chancellor tells us it is intended to. My amendments seek to spell it out, and I hope that they will have the full support of the whole House.

Ms. Hilary Armstrong: Having listened carefully to the debate, I feel that the problem is that hon. Members are trying to legislate for their own ideal worlds. But we have to legislate and know that our legislation can be implemented. It is not possible for us to lay down in law the arguments advanced by hon. Members in favour of the premise and to say, "This will happen." Some hon. Members may want it to happen but there is no way in which we could police such a law. It is not our job to put rhetoric—however nice and good we may think it is —at the centre of the law, because we could not deliver the goods and enforce such a law. It is misleading to pretend that we could achieve that in the Bill.
The structure and organisation of many families today is very different from that described by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). We have to legislate for families as they are and give those families the support and

encouragement that they need to bring up their children as well as possible. We could say, "There ought to be a father around." But what would happen if the father disappeared before the birth—perhaps two months after conception? Where would that leave the Bill? In such circumstances, it would be wrong of us to accept the amendments. We know that we simply could not make the matters dealt with in them a serious legislative issue.

Mr. Thurnham: I am pleased to have this opportunity to intervene briefly on a subject that arose in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) has changed his original wording to make matters a little easier. But we still have a difficulty with the wording. The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration. I am not sure that we shall succeed if we seek to go further and stipulate the precise need for a father; indeed we might achieve the reverse. We may place the woman in such a position that she says that a certain man is her partner —they might conceivably even say that they are married —just for sake of fulfilling the stipulation in my hon. Friend's amendment.
I know that the amendment does not refer to someone being married, but it places the woman in a position where she may be tempted to have a pseudo-father for her child. If the Bill were seen to be restrictive, there is the possibility of children being fathered by men with AIDS and women indulging in self-insemination rather than going for treatment.
A widow whose husband had left her some sperm may better come to terms with the loss of her husband by having the child that they both wanted and she still wants. The fact that she has lost her husband should not be a technical reason for preventing her from having treatment.

Mr. Wilshire: I wanted to raise this point before the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) sat down. My hon. Friend is raising the same point, so I obviously did not make myself sufficiently clear. I am not suggesting a variation of what was discussed in Committee. Nothing that I have said about amendments Nos. 18 or 19 suggests that there is any compulsion or necessity or that a father is essential. That is why I went out of my way to distance myself from amendment No. 20, which provides compulsion. I am advancing an entirely new argument—that the welfare of the child at least requires that we give some thought to the need for a father, not legislate for compulsion.

Mr. Thurnham: I am glad that my hon. Friend is saying that he wants to distance himself from amendment No. 20, which goes further than we could accept. I am advised that it is defective and that in certain circumstances the wording could be self-defeating. We must leave amendment No. 20 to one side and stick with the amendments Nos. 18 and 19.
It was said in Committee that there are good single mothers and couples who are the worst possible parents. Deciding whether treatment should be offered on the basis of someone presenting himself as the father is not the right way to proceed. It would be better to leave it to the people concerned, bearing in mind the welfare of the child, to decide whether treatment should be offered rather than to


get into arguments about whether there is a father. A widow should not feel that she should terminate her pregnancy because she will be left as a single mother.

Mr. Blunkett: I do not think that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) or myself suggested that, in the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman has outlined, there would be any objection or concern. He should distinguish between what he has just said and what he said earlier about a widow seeking artificial insemination following the death of her husband. I shall be corrected if I have misconstrued the hon. Gentleman's words, but he said that if the sperm were still available it could help her to get over her bereavement to have a child. No one, even in those tragic circumstances, should have a child to overcome their despair or emotional problems.

Mr. Thurnham: The hon. Gentleman put his point well earlier. A widow, bearing in mind that her husband may have wished them to have a child, may feel that it helps her to come to terms with her bereavement to go through with the wishes of herself and her late husband. Obviously, those who are giving the treatment will bear in mind whether that is in the interests or the welfare of the child. The Bill says that the welfare of the child is paramount.

Mrs. Peacock: Are not we considering the welfare of the family as well as that of the child? Is not it better for a child to have a father, as part of the family unit?

Mr. Thurnham: We all want the "ideal" family, and are considering the welfare of the child with that in mind. What we are discussing, however, is the wording of the Bill, which suggests that the child's welfare should be a matter for those giving the treatment to consider. The question is whether we should go further and try to specify the presence of a father, and what wording we should use to do so.
I think that we must provide that those giving the treatment can make a judgment, without any stipulation in the Bill that the father must be married or the relationship must be stable. Obviously I am not suggesting that a widow should have a child solely to come to terms with her bereavement, but, if it is deemed right for her to do so, it may well help. The rightness of the action must be the first consideration.

Mr. Wilshire: I fear that my hon. Friend has still not realised the essential difference between my amendments and what has been discussed before. My quote from the Lord Chancellor mentioned the factors that a clinician should take into account when reaching his judgment. If my hon. Friend reads the Bill and earlier speeches in detail, I think that he will grasp the fact that the intention of the Bill—and that of my amendments—is not to lay down hard-and-fast rules, but to give some guidance to the clinicians, who will make individual judgments about individual cases.

Mr. Thurnham: I think that, in many respects, my hon. Friend and I agree; all that we have to decide is the words that we want to see in the Bill. I should be content for it to provide that the welfare of the child should be the paramount consideration of those deciding whether to give treatment. My hon. Friend wants to go further, and insert words about the father.

Ms. Richardson: We intend to vote against amendments 18, 19 and 20, as we did in Committee.
It seems to me— particularly on the basis of the speeches of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire)—that the one person who is not being considered is the woman. As clause 13 is now framed—we realise that it was drafted on the advice of the Lord Chancellor—the welfare of the child is of paramount importance. Now, the hon. Member for Spelthorne —going much further, I acknowledge, than his hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), who is much more implacable—wants to insert the provision that clinicians should be given "guidance", a nod or a wink, in regard to the existence of a father. There is no mention of the wishes, views and emotions of the mother.
I freely acknowledge that, in some circumstances, a woman may simply want to have a child. I say that with special reference to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), who said that child bearing was not a right. It is not a right, but I believe that most women would agree that, if they wanted a child, they would do everything possible to achieve that objective. I know many women—single, divorced or separated—who would go to inordinate lengths to have a child, because that is their overwhelming wish.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) said, the system proposed by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) is totally unworkable. If we insert
(including the need of that child for a father)",
we are ready to say that the clinician should take account of the size of that father's income and house and all sorts of other considerations which sound laughable but are not. We are inviting the clinician to act as a kind of god and to say that he must look at the whole background, instead of discussing with the patient or client her wishes and needs and then taking into account the child's welfare in the long run.

Mr. Julian Brazier: I have been present throughout the debate on the Cross Benches, although I have only just come to my place. The hon. Lady's comments, especially her last sentence, make it clear that she sees the position of the "patient", the prospective mother, as of central importance. Surely the point, which has been stated by her hon. Friends and my hon. Friends in various amendments, is that, in asserting that the welfare of the child is paramount, we must take account of a child's need to have two parents where possible. That is not to detract from the actions of many men. A friend of mine struggles strongly to fill the part of both parties because of a tragedy—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Member must come to the point of his intervention and not make a speech.

Mr. Brazier: I was just about to finish, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I put it to the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) that, if she wants to stand by what she said at the beginning of her speech about the welfare of the child being paramount, she cannot aver that the patient's views must be paramount.

Ms. Richardson: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. In taking account of the welfare of the child, the authority will consider the mother's circumstances.
We all acknowledge that we are feeling our way in new territory. My problem lies with the idea that we are making


the clinician the one who will judge. When looking at the position of the client—let us call her that—the clinician must make a decision on her needs and the welfare of the child that she wants to bear.
Obviously, doctors and all of us would like to see a situation in which there was a mother and a father and other members of an extended family. That is the ideal, but, as the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) acknowledged, life is not always like that. Some women who want a child and could provide a good background and home for a child do not want to have a man around because they have had a particularly bad experience with a former partner. That has often happened.
The hon. Member for Canterbury looks puzzled. He must, however, have come across cases in his constituency of women being victims of domestic violence. That does not necessarily mean that those women do not want to have more children. Why should they not be allowed to have them, even if they want to have nothing further to do with men? Therefore, I shall invite my hon. Friends to vote against the amendment.
10.45 pm
In Committee, I raised another substantial point with the Minister: whether the clause, as drafted, is likely to breach the European convention on human rights. That point was put to me by the National Council for Civil Liberties. The Minister should ask the Lord Chancellor to consider the briefing commissioned by the National Council for Civil Liberties. It was written by Mr. Michael Beloff, a lawyer of renown who has won many cases in the European Court. He maintains:
a law which either specifically or, in practice, has the effect of restricting the access of certain categories of women to have a child … may well be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights under:
Article 8: the unjustified interference with a person's right to a private and family life …
Article 12: the denial of the right to found a family. This right is not conditional upon marriage, or being in a heterosexual relationship.
Article 14: the differentiation in treatment of certain categories of women to enjoy the rights and freedoms under the Convention without discrimination on the grounds of their status.
I accept that the Minister had had no opportunity to study the brief when she gave her reply in Committee, but it was not good enough for her just to say, "We'll have to wait and see what happens." The Government may find that they are in serious trouble. I hope that the Minister will deal with that matter, as well as with the other points that have been made. I invite my hon. Friends to vote against amendments Nos. 18, 19 and 20.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Once again, we have had a detailed and thoughtful debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) made a strong speech about the interests of the child. She has strong reservations about some of the techniques for reproduction that have a bearing on lesbian couples and the lack of both a father and a mother in family units.
Other views have been advanced in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) spoke at length in Committee about the subject. Tonight he has developed further many of the points that he made at that time.
It is a complex and difficult matter and each hon. Member has to decide according to his or her own conscience. It is right and proper that the House should take a view in such special circumstances. After all, it is unprecedented for statutory controls to be made over the provision of treatment. We are debating special circumstances in which a life is being created. The Bill concerns the information, the licensing and the inspection of the premises. It seems right and proper that we should consider carefully the addition to the Bill that was incorporated in another place that the welfare of the child should be taken into consideration.
Some argue that it is wrong to permit the creation of a fatherless child. Clause 28 takes special steps to clarify the role of the father and that the husband of a woman who bears the child is the father unless he can show that he did not consent to the treatment and that if a man and a woman are treated together, the man is the father.
My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton rightly stressed the importance of fathers. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but a number of meetings are taking place throughout the Chamber. I can barely hear the Minister and she is entitled to be heard.

Mrs. Bottomley: I have to tell my hon. Friend that her amendment is defective where it refers to clause 28. By prescribing that any child born as a result of the treatment is required to have a father by virtue of that clause, married couples or partners presenting for treatment where the sperm has not been donated by a third party would be prevented from obtaining treatment.
The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne does not involve a prohibition so does not mean that unmarried couples or those not in a stable partnership shall be refused treatment. It spells out and elaborates all the factors that should be considered when the child's welfare is taken into account. That is rather a different matter. There is concern that a prohibition would encourage women who were determined to have a child not to go through the authorised treatment centres but to use unauthorised treatment centres, with all the inherent dangers in that approach.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I have often said that we have the delusion that somehow we can control human behaviour, but a young woman who wants a baby does not have to go to a treatment centre. Throughout history young women have become pregnant without the intervention of the state. Is it not the case that if a woman is determined to become pregnant she can do so whether or not we agree to this particular structure?

Mrs. Bottomley: That view was also expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) in Committee when she said,
It is not for the state to decide who should or should not have children."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 15 May 1990; c.151.]
I refer my hon. Friend to the remarks of Lord Hailsham who said:
I am sorry to say that there will always be an intelligent minority who prefers what I might call the good old-fashioned version of procreation.
We cannot regulate such matters in the general population, but there is an argument that in such special circumstances, where great care and attention is given to


create an embryo and implant that embryo to secure a life, often in extremely adverse circumstances, it must be right and proper for consideration to be given to the welfare of that child.
My hon. Friend's amendment, which refers to the need for a father, adds to our definition. He referred to the comments by the Lord Chancellor about the nature of the concept of welfare. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) tabled an amendment in Committee on whether the concept of welfare should be paramount. It is a complex concept, particularly in circumstances which involve the option of whether the child in question is born. That adds difficulties. My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor referred to the remarks of Judge Hardie Boyce of New Zealand who defined welfare most effectively. He said:
Welfare is an all encompassing word. It includes material welfare, both in the sense of adequacy of resources to provide a pleasant home and comfortable standard of living and in the sense of adequacy of care to ensure that good health and due personal pride are maintained. However, while material considerations have their place, they are secondary matters. More important are the stability and security, the loving and understanding care and guidance, the warm compassionate relationship, that are essential for the full development of the child's own character, personality and talents.
The hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) advanced a different argument which has merit, although it is not one that I personally support. She asked specifically about the status of the European convention on human rights. I have considered carefully the concerns expressed by the National Council for Civil Liberties and my advice is that the essential object of article 8 is to protect the individual against arbitrary interference by public authorities with their private and family life.
Our legal advice is that it is unlikely that the European Court of Human Rights would consider that article 8 would impose a positive duty on the Government to ensure that single women had the same rights of access to treatment as married women. I am also advised that article 14 would not be breached if article 8 was not and that article 12 has no application in the case of single women who want to have children by means of AID or IVF.

Ms. Armstrong: Is the Minister saying that it is her interpretation that, if the amendment were accepted, only married couples would be able to opt for that treatment?

Mrs. Bottomley: I am pleased to be able to clarify precisely what the amendment means. According to amendment No. 20, a woman shall not be provided with treatment unless
account has been taken of the welfare of any such child
who may be born and the need of that child for a father. There is no requirement or prohibition. The licensing authority would have to consider that properly.

Mr. Chris Smith: Does the Minister agree that if the amendment were passed it would create a presumption in favour of the presence of a father, a presumption which in the great majority of cases might well be sensible, but which might not be sensible in some cases?

Mrs. Bottomley: Clause 25 identifies the role of the code of practice within which it will be important for the authority to spell out in more detail the way in which the concept of the welfare of the child and, if the amendment is accepted, the child's need for a father should be implemented. It will set out how the authority should consider, with respect to treatment centres, their undertaking that task. As I said, there would not be a prohibition. There would be a recognition that children need stability, continuity and the concepts that I identified earlier in my comments about welfare and the Lord Chancellor's comments in that respect.

Mr. Thurnham: My hon. Friend spoke earlier about the need for a warm and loving relationship. I remind her of an example in my constituency when a single woman was rightly allowed to have a child. Mrs. Annie Gibson was a widow and battled against many committees to be allowed to adopt a severely handicapped child. I cannot think of anyone who could be a better parent for that child, who had previously been without a family. Is not that an example of a single woman having a child and bringing it up most successfully?

Mrs. Bottomley: I am impressed to hear about my hon. Friend's constituent and her clear commitment to that child. However, when a child is in need of a home, the circumstances are rather different from the circumstances that are envisaged in the Bill when one is bringing about the creation of a life.
Although I share hon. Members' reservations about laying down precise arrangements under which children should be brought up, I feel that my hon. Friend's amendment has a sufficient level of generality, while protecting the welfare of the children, to commend it to the House for its support.

It being Eleven o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [2 April] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 20 because I wish to seek to divide the House on amendment No. 18.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question on amendments and new clauses, moved by a Member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at Eleven o'clock.

Amendment proposed: No. 18, in page 6, line 46, after `treatment', insert
'(including the need of that child for a father).—[Mr. Wilshire.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 226, Noes 174.

Division No. 241]
[11 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Dixon, Don


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Douglas, Dick


Allason, Rupert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Alton, David
Dover, Den


Amess, David
Duffy, A. E. P.


Amos, Alan
Dunn, Bob


Arbuthnot, James
Durant, Tony


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Eggar, Tim


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Ashby, David
Fallon, Michael


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Favell, Tony


Atkins, Robert
Fearn, Ronald


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Batiste, Spencer
Fookes, Dame Janet


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Beggs, Roy
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Beith, A. J.
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bell, Stuart
Freeman, Roger


Bellingham, Henry
French, Douglas


Bendall, Vivian
Gale, Roger


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Gardiner, George


Benyon, W.
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Blunkett, David
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Boswell, Tim
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gregory, Conal


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bowis, John
Grocott, Bruce


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Ground, Patrick


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Grylls, Michael


Brazier, Julian
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bright, Graham
Hague, William


Buck, Sir Antony
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Buckley, George J.
Hannam, John


Burns, Simon
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Burt, Alistair
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Butcher, John
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Butterfill, John
Hayward, Robert


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Canavan, Dennis
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hill, James


Cartwright, John
Hinchliffe, David


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hind, Kenneth


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Chope, Christopher
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Churchill, Mr
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howells, Geraint


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Conway, Derek
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hunter, Andrew


Cormack, Patrick
Irvine, Michael


Cummings, John
Jack, Michael


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Janman, Tim


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Jessel, Toby


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Day, Stephen
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Devlin, Tim
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael





Kennedy, Charles
Reid, Dr John


Key, Robert
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Kilfedder, James
Riddick, Graham


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Knapman, Roger
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Latham, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lawrence, Ivan
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shelton, Sir William


Lightbown, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lilley, Peter
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Livsey, Richard
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Steen, Anthony


McCrea, Rev William
Stevens, Lewis


McFall, John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Stokes, Sir John


Maclean, David
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Maclennan, Robert
Sumberg, David


McLoughlin, Patrick
Summerson, Hugo


McNamara, Kevin
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Maginnis, Ken
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Malins, Humfrey
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mates, Michael
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Miscampbell, Norman
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thorne, Neil


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Thornton, Malcolm


Monro, Sir Hector
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tracey, Richard


Morrison, Sir Charles
Trimble, David


Moss, Malcolm
Trippier, David


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Trotter, Neville


Mudd, David
Twinn, Dr Ian


Murphy, Paul
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Neubert, Michael
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Nicholls, Patrick
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Norris, Steve
Wallace, James


O'Brien, William
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Paisley, Rev Ian
Watts, John


Parry, Robert
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Patnick, Irvine
Whitney, Ray


Patten, Rt Hon John
Widdecombe, Ann


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wood, Timothy


Pawsey, James
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Yeo, Tim


Porter, David (Waveney)



Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rathbone, Tim
Mrs. Ann Winterton and Mr. David Wilshire.


Redmond, Martin





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Carrington, Matthew


Adley, Robert
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Allen, Graham
Clay, Bob


Armstrong, Hilary
Clelland, David


Ashton, Joe
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cohen, Harry


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Coleman, Donald


Barron, Kevin
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Beckett, Margaret
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Boswell, Tim
Corbyn, Jeremy


Boyes, Roland
Couchman, James


Bradley, Keith
Cousins, Jim


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Cox, Tom


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Cryer, Bob


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Curry, David


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Dalyell, Tam


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Darling, Alistair


Budgen, Nicholas
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Caborn, Richard
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Callaghan, Jim
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Dewar, Donald


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Dobson, Frank


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Carr, Michael
Dykes, Hugh






Eastham, Ken
Martlew, Eric


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Maxton, John


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Meacher, Michael


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Meale, Alan


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Miller, Sir Hal


Fisher, Mark
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Flannery, Martin
Morley, Elliot


Flynn, Paul
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mowlam, Marjorie


Forman, Nigel
Mullin, Chris


Forth, Eric
Nellist, Dave


Foster, Derek
Nelson, Anthony


Foulkes, George
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Franks, Cecil
Page, Richard


Fraser, John
Patchett, Terry


Fyfe, Maria
Pike, Peter L.


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


George, Bruce
Prescott, John


Gill, Christopher
Primarolo, Dawn


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Quin, Ms Joyce


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Radice, Giles


Golding, Mrs Llin
Richardson, Jo


Goodlad, Alastair
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Graham, Thomas
Robertson, George


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Rogers, Allan


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Rowe, Andrew


Hardy, Peter
Ruddock, Joan


Harman, Ms Harriet
Ryder, Richard


Harris, David
Sackville, Hon Tom


Haselhurst, Alan
Sedgemore, Brian


Haynes, Frank
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Sheerman, Barry


Hood, Jimmy
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hordern, Sir Peter
Short, Clare


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Skinner, Dennis


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hoyle, Doug
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Snape, Peter


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Soley, Clive


Illsley, Eric
Squire, Robin


Ingram, Adam
Steinberg, Gerry


Jackson, Robert
Strang, Gavin


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Thurnham, Peter


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Turner, Dennis


Kirkwood, Archy
Walley, Joan


Knox, David
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Lambie, David
Wareing, Robert N.


Leadbitter, Ted
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Lewis, Terry
Wheeler, Sir John


Litherland, Robert
Wiggin, Jerry


Livingstone, Ken
Wigley, Dafydd


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Wilkinson, John


Loyden, Eddie
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


McAllion, John
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


McKelvey, William
Winnick, David


McLeish, Henry
Worthington, Tony


Madden, Max
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Mahon, Mrs Alice



Marek, Dr John
Tellers for the Noes:


Marland, Paul
Mr. Frank Doran and Mrs. Teresa Gorman.


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Questions accordingly agreed to.

Madam Deputy Speaker: We now have to consider all the Government amendments to the end of clause 44.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to offer the House a Division on amendment No. 19, which raises the same issue as amendment No. 18, on which we have just voted.

Clause 24

DIRECTIONS AS TO PARTICULAR MATTERS

Amendment made: No. 40, in page 13, line 14, at end insert—
'(2A) Directions may authorise, in such circumstances and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the directions, the keeping, by or on behalf of a person to whom a licence applies, of gametes or embryos in the course of their carriage to or from any premises.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Clause 25

CODE OF PRACTICE

Amendments made: No. 19, in page 14, line 19, after `services', insert
'(including a child's need for a father)'.

No. 41, in page 14, line 20, at end insert—
'(2A) The code may also give guidance about the use of any technique involving the placing of sperm and eggs in a woman.' —[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Clause 28

MEANING OF "FATHER"

Amendments made: No. 42, in page 16, line 13, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
'(a) are to the parties to a marriage subsisting at that time, unless a judicial separation was then in force, but'.

No. 43, in page 16, line 22, at end insert—
'(9) In subsection (7)(a) above, "judicial separation" includes a legal separation obtained in a country outside the British Islands and recognised in the United Kingdom.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Clause 29

EFFECT OF SECTIONS 27 AND 28

Amendment proposed: No. 44, in page 16, line 34, at end insert—
'(4) In relation to England and Wales and Northern Ireland, nothing in the provisions of section 27(1) or 28(2) to (4), read with this section, affects—

(a) the succession to any dignity or title of honour or renders any person capable of succeeding to or transmitting a right to succeed to any such dignity or title, or
(b) the devolution of any property limited (expressly or not) to devolve (as nearly as the law permits) along with any dignity or title of honour.
(5) In relation to Scotland—

(a) those provisions do not apply to any title, coat of arms, honour or dignity transmissible on the death of the holder thereof or affect the succession thereto or the devolution thereof, and
(b) where the terms of any deed provide that any property or interest in property shall devolve along with a title, coat of arms, honour or dignity, nothing in those provisions shall prevent that property or interest from so devolving.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 214, Noes 167.

Division No. 242]
[11.15 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Ashby, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Atkins, Robert


Allason, Rupert
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Amess, David
Baldry, Tony


Amos, Alan
Batiste, Spencer


Arbuthnot, James
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Beggs, Roy


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Bellingham, Henry






Bendall, Vivian
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hill, James


Benyon, W.
Hind, Kenneth


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Hordern, Sir Peter


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Boswell, Tim
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Bowis, John
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hunter, Andrew


Brazier, Julian
Irvine, Michael


Bright, Graham
Jack, Michael


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Jackson, Robert


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Janman, Tim


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Jessel, Toby


Budgen, Nicholas
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Burns, Simon
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Burt, Alistair
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Butcher, John
Key, Robert


Butterfill, John
Kilfedder, James


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Carrington, Matthew
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Lawrence, Ivan


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Chapman, Sydney
Lightbown, David


Chope, Christopher
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
McCrea, Rev William


Conway, Derek
Maclean, David


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Couchman, James
Maginnis, Ken


Curry, David
Malins, Humfrey


Davies, Q. (Stamfd &amp; Spald'g)
Marland, Paul


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Day, Stephen
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Devlin, Tim
Miller, Sir Hal


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Miscampbell, Norman


Dover, Den
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Dunn, Bob
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Durant, Tony
Monro, Sir Hector


Eggar, Tim
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Fallon, Michael
Moss, Malcolm


Favell, Tony
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Fearn, Ronald
Mudd, David


Fishburn, John Dudley
Nelson, Anthony


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Neubert, Michael


Forth, Eric
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Fox, Sir Marcus
Nicholls, Patrick


Franks, Cecil
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Freeman, Roger
Norris, Steve


French, Douglas
Page, Richard


Gale, Roger
Paice, James


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Paisley, Rev Ian


Gill, Christopher
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Pawsey, James


Goodlad, Alastair
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Porter, David (Waveney)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Rathbone, Tim


Gregory, Conal
Ronton, Rt Hon Tim


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Ground, Patrick
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Grylls, Michael
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Hague, William
Rowe, Andrew


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Ryder, Richard


Hanley, Jeremy
Sackville, Hon Tom


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Harris, David
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Haselhurst, Alan
Shelton, Sir William


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Hayward, Robert
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor





Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Steen, Anthony
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Stevens, Lewis
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Waller, Gary


Stokes, Sir John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wells, Bowen


Sumberg, David
Whitney, Ray


Summerson, Hugo
Widdecombe, Ann


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wiggin, Jerry


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wilkinson, John


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Wilshire, David


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Thorne, Neil
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Thornton, Malcolm
Yeo, Tim


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Tracey, Richard



Trimble, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Trippier, David
Mr. Irvine Patrick and Mr. Timothy Wood.


Trotter, Neville





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Adley, Robert
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Allen, Graham
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Alton, David
Fisher, Mark


Armstrong, Hilary
Flannery, Martin


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Flynn, Paul


Ashton, Joe
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Foster, Derek


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Fraser, John


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Fyfe, Maria


Barron, Kevin
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Beckett, Margaret
George, Bruce


Beith, A. J.
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Blunkett, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Boyes, Roland
Graham, Thomas


Bradley, Keith
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Grocott, Bruce


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hardy, Peter


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Haynes, Frank


Buckley, George J.
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Caborn, Richard
Hinchliffe, David


Callaghan, Jim
Hood, Jimmy


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Howells, Geraint


Canavan, Dennis
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Hoyle, Doug


Can, Michael
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cartwright, John
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Illsley, Eric


Clay, Bob
Ingram, Adam


Clelland, David
Johnston, Sir Russell


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cohen, Harry
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Kennedy, Charles


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kirkwood, Archy


Cousins, Jim
Lambie, David


Cox, Tom
Leadbitter, Ted


Cryer, Bob
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lewis, Terry


Dalyell, Tam
Litherland, Robert


Darling, Alistair
Livingstone, Ken


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Livsey, Richard


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dewar, Donald
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dixon, Don
Loyden, Eddie


Dobson, Frank
McAllion, John


Douglas, Dick
McFall, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McKelvey, William


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
McLeish, Henry


Eastham, Ken
Maclennan, Robert


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Marek, Dr John






Martlew, Eric
Skinner, Dennis


Mates, Michael
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Meacher, Michael
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Meale, Alan
Snape, Peter


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Mitchell, Sir David
Steinberg, Gerry


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Strang, Gavin


Morley, Elliot
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mullin, Chris
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Nellist, Dave
Turner, Dennis


O'Brien, William
Vaz, Keith


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wallace, James


Patchett, Terry
Walley, Joan


Pike, Peter L.
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wareing, Robert N.


Prescott, John
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Primarolo, Dawn
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Redmond, Martin
Wigley, Dafydd


Reid, Dr John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Richardson, Jo
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Robertson, George
Winnick, David


Rogers, Allan
Worthington, Tony


Ruddock, Joan



Sedgemore, Brian
Tellers for the Noes:


Sheerman, Barry
Mr. Frank Doran and Mrs. Teresa Gorman.


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert



Short, Clare

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 45, in page 16, leave out line 35. —[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Schedule 4

STATUS: AMENDMENTS OF ENACTMENTS

Amendment made: No. 50, in page 32, line 35, at end insert—

'Social Security Act 1975 (c. 14)

1A. In section 25(1) of the Social Security Act 1975 (widowed mother's allowance), for the words from "or" after paragraph (b) to the end there is substituted "or
(c) if the woman and her late husband were residing together immediately before the time of his death, the woman is pregnant as the result of being artificially inseminated before that time with the semen of some person other than her husband, or as the result of the placing in her before that time of an embryo, of an egg in the process of fertilisation, or of sperm and eggs.

Social Security (Northern Ireland) Act 1975 (c. 15)

1B. In section 25(1) of the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Act 1975 (widowed mother's allowance), at the end there is inserted "or
(c) if the woman and her late husband were residing together immediately before the time of his death, the woman is pregnant as the result of being artificially inseminated before that time with the semen of some person other than her husband, or as the result of the placing in her before that time of an embryo, of an egg in the process of fertilisation, or of sperm and eggs.".'.—[Mr. Kenneth Ckarke.]

Clause 30

THE AUTHORITY'S REGISTER OF INFORMATION

Amendment made: No. 60, in page 17, line 21, at end insert—
'(4A) Regulations cannot require the Authority to give any information as to the identity of a person whose gametes have been used or from whom an embryo has been taken if a person to whom a licence applied was provided with the information at a time when the Authority could not have been required to give information of the kind in question.'—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Clause 31

INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED TO REGISTRAR GENERAL

Amendments made: No. 46, in page 17, line 38, after 'man', insert 'is or'.

No. 47, in page 17, line 42, leave out from 'disclose' to end of line 44 and insert
'whether any information on the register kept in pursuance of section 30 of this Act tends to show that the man may be the father of the child by virtue of section 28 of this Act and, if it does, disclose that information'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Clause 32

RESTRICTIONS ON DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION

Amendments made: No. 59, in page 18, line 16, at end insert—
'(cc) in pursuance of an order of a court under section [Disclosure in interests of justice] or [Disclosure in interests of justice: congenital disabilities, etc.] of this Act,'.

No. 58, in page 18, line 35, at end insert—
`(bb) so far as it identifies a person who, but for sections 27 to 29 of this Act, would or might be a parent of a person who instituted proceedings under section 1A of the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 1976, but only for the purpose of defending such proceedings, or instituting connected proceedings for compensation against that parent.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Clause 38

OFFENCES

Amendment made: No. 51, in page 21, line 47, after 'Act' insert—
'(bb) contravenes section 4(2A) of this Act.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Clause 40

REGULATIONS

Amendments made: No. 52, in page 23, line 26, leave out second '(3)'.

No. 53, in page 23, line 26, leave out 'or 4(2)' and insert

'4(2) or (2A), (parental orders in favour of gamete donors), 30(4)(a), or (keeping and examining gametes and embryos in connection with crime, etc.)'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Clause 44

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT, ETC.

Amendment made: No. 55, in page 25, line 11, at end insert—
'(4A) Schedule 4 to this Act (which makes minor and consequential amendments) shall have effect.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

New clause 8

KEEPING AND EXAMINING GAMETES AND EMBRYOS IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME, ETC.

'(1) Regulations may provide—

(a) for the keeping and examination of gametes or embryos, in such manner and on such conditions (if any) as may be specified in regulations, in connection with the investigation of, or proceedings for an offence (wherever committed), or
(b) for the storage of gametes, in such manner and on such conditions (if any) as may be specified in


regulations, where they are to be used only for such purposes, other than treatment services, as may be specified in regulations.

(2) Nothing in this Act makes unlawful the keeping or examination of any gametes or embryos in pursuance of regulations made by virtue of this section.

(3) In this section "examination" includes use for the purposes of any test.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 9

PARENTAL ORDERS IN FAVOUR OF GAMETE DONORS

'(1) The court may make an order providing for a child to be treated in law as the child of the parties to a marriage (referred to in this section as "the husband" and "the wife") if—

(a) the child has been carried by a woman other than the wife as the result of the placing in her of an embryo or sperm and eggs or her artificial insemination,
(b) the gametes of the husband or the wife, or both, were used to bring about the creation of the embryo, and
(c) the conditions in subsections (2) to (7) below are satisfied.

(2) The husband and the wife must apply for the order within six months of the birth of the child.

(3) At the time of the application and of the making of the order—

(a) the child's home must be with the husband and the wife, and
(b) the husband or the wife, or both of them, must be domiciled in a part of the United Kingdom or in the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man.

(4) At the time of the making of the order both the husband and the wife must have attained the age of eighteen.

(5) The court must be satisfied that both the father of the child (including a person who is the father by virtue of section 28 of this Act), where he is not the husband, and the woman who carried the child have freely, and with full understanding of what is involved, agreed unconditionally to the making of the order.

(6) Subsection (5) above does not require the agreement of a person who cannot be found or is incapable of giving agreement and the agreement of the woman who carried the child is ineffective for the purposes of that subsection if given by her less than six weeks after the child's birth.

(7) The court must be satisfied that no money or other benefit (other than for expenses reasonably incurred) has been given or received by the husband or the wife for or in consideration of—

(a) the making of the order,
(b) any agreement required by subsection (5) above,
(c) the handing over of the child to the husband and the wife, or
(d) the making of any arrangements with a view to the making of the order, unless authorised by the court.

(8) For the purposes of an application under this section—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, section 92(7) to (10) of, and Part I of Schedule 11 to, the Children Act 1989 (jurisdiction of courts) shall apply for the purposes of this section to determine the meaning of "the court" as they apply for the purposes of that Act and proceedings on the application shall be "family proceedings" for the purposes of that Act,
(b) in relation to Scotland, "the court" means the Court of Session or the sheriff court of the sheriffdom within which the child is, and

(c) in relation to Northern Ireland, "the court" means the High Court or any county court within whose division the child is.

(9) Regulations may provide—

(a) for any provision of the enactments about adoption to have effect, with such modifications (if any) as may be specified in the regulations, in relation to orders under this section, and applications for such orders, as it has effect in relation to adoption, and applications for adoption orders, and
(b) for references in any enactment to adoption, an adopted child or an adoptive relationship to be read (respectively) as references to the effect of an order under this section, a child to whom such an order applies and a relationship arising by virtue of the enactments about adoption, as applied by the regulations, and for similar expressions in connection with adoption to be read accordingly,
and the regulations may include such incidental or supplemental provision as appears to the Secretary of State necessary or desirable in consequence of any provision made by virtue of paragraph (a) or (b) above.

(10) In this section "the enactments about adoption" means the Adoption Act 1976, the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 and the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987.

(11) Subsection (1)(a) above applies whether the woman was in the United Kingdom or elsewhere at the time of the placing in her of the embryo or the sperm and eggs or her artificial insemination.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 231, Noes 130.

Division No. 243]
[11.28 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Aitken, Jonathan
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Allason, Rupert
Carrington, Matthew


Amess, David
Cartwright, John


Amos, Alan
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Arbuthnot, James
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Chapman, Sydney


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Chope, Christopher


Ashby, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Atkins, Robert
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Baldry, Tony
Couchman, James


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Batiste, Spencer
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Curry, David


Beggs, Roy
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Benyon, W.
Day, Stephen


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Devlin, Tim


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Boswell, Tim
Dover, Den


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Dunn, Bob


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Durant, Tony


Bowis, John
Eggar, Tim


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Fallon, Michael


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Favell, Tony


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fearn, Ronald


Brazier, Julian
Fishburn, John Dudley


Bright, Graham
Forman, Nigel


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Forth, Eric


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Budgen, Nicholas
Franks, Cecil


Burns, Simon
Freeman, Roger


Burt, Alistair
French, Douglas


Butcher, John
Gale, Roger


Butterfill, John
Gardiner, George


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Garel-Jones, Tristan






Gill, Christopher
Monro, Sir Hector


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Morrison, Sir Charles


Goodlad, Alastair
Moss, Malcolm


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mudd, David


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Nelson, Anthony


Gregory, Conal
Neubert, Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Ground, Patrick
Nicholls, Patrick


Grylls, Michael
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Norris, Steve


Hague, William
Page, Richard


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Paice, James


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hanley, Jeremy
Pawsey, James


Hannam, John
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Harris, David
Rathbone, Tim


Haselhurst, Alan
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hayward, Robert
Riddick, Graham


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hill, James
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Hind, Kenneth
Rowe, Andrew


Hordern, Sir Peter
Ryder, Richard


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Sackville, Hon Tom


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Shelton, Sir William


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Hunter, Andrew
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Irvine, Michael
Squire, Robin


Jack, Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Jackson, Robert
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Janman, Tim
Stevens, Lewis


Jessel, Toby
Stokes, Sir John


Johnston, Sir Russell
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sumberg, David


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Summerson, Hugo


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Kennedy, Charles
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Key, Robert
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Kilfedder, James
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Thurnham, Peter


Kirkwood, Archy
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Tracey, Richard


Knox, David
Trimble, David


Lawrence, Ivan
Trippier, David


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Trotter, Neville


Lightbown, David
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lilley, Peter
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Livsey, Richard
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Wallace, James


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Waller, Gary


Maclean, David
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Maclennan, Robert
Wells, Bowen


McLoughlin, Patrick
Wheeler, Sir John


Maginnis, Ken
Widdecombe, Ann


Marland, Paul
Wiggin, Jerry


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Wilkinson, John


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Wilshire, David


Mates, Michael
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Yeo, Tim


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Miller, Sir Hal



Miscampbell, Norman
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Mr. Irvine Patrick and Mr. Timothy Wood.


Mitchell, Sir David



Molyneaux, Rt Hon James






NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Allen, Graham
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Armstrong, Hilary
Illsley, Eric


Ashton, Joe
Ingram, Adam


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Barron, Kevin
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Beckett, Margaret
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Beith, A. J.
Lambie, David


Blunkett, David
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Boyes, Roland
Lewis, Terry


Bradley, Keith
Litherland, Robert


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Livingstone, Ken


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Loyden, Eddie


Buckley, George J.
McAllion, John


Caborn, Richard
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Callaghan, Jim
McKelvey, William


Carr, Michael
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Marek, Dr John


Clay, Bob
Martlew, Eric


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Meacher, Michael


Cohen, Harry
Meale, Alan


Coleman, Donald
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Morley, Elliot


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Corbyn, Jeremy
Mullin, Chris


Cousins, Jim
Nellist, Dave


Cox, Tom
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Cryer, Bob
Patchett, Terry


Dalyell, Tam
Pike, Peter L.


Darling, Alistair
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Prescott, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Primarolo, Dawn


Dixon, Don
Quin, Ms Joyce


Dobson, Frank
Redmond, Martin


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Reid, Dr John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Richardson, Jo


Eastham, Ken
Rogers, Allan


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Ruddock, Joan


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Sedgemore, Brian


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Short, Clare


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Skinner, Dennis


Fisher, Mark
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Flannery, Martin
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Flynn, Paul
Snape, Peter


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Steinberg, Gerry


Foster, Derek
Strang, Gavin


Fraser, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Fyfe, Maria
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Vaz, Keith


George, Bruce
Walley, Joan


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Wareing, Robert N.


Graham, Thomas
Warren, Kenneth


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Hardy, Peter
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Welsh, Michael (Doncaater N)


Haynes, Frank
Wigley, Dafydd


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Hinchliffe, David
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Hood, Jimmy
Winnick, David


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)



Howells, Geraint
Tellers for the Noes:


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Mr. Frank Doran and Mrs. Teresa Gorman.


Hoyle, Doug



Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Amendment made: (a), in line 10, at end insert
'or in the case of a child born before the coming into force of this Act, within six months of such coming into force.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

New clause 11

CIVIL LIABILITY TO CHILD WITH DISABILITY

'.—(1) After section 1 of the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 1976 (civil liability to child born disabled) there is inserted—

Extension of section 1 to cover infertility treatments

1A. (1) In any case where—

(a) a child carried by a woman as the result of the placing in her of an embryo or of sperm and eggs or her artificial insemination is born disabled,
(b) the disability results from an act or omission in the course of the selection, or the keeping or use outside the body, of the embryo carried by her or of the gametes used to bring about the creation of the embryo, and
(c) a person is under this section answerable to the child in respect of the act or omission,
the child's disabilities are to be regarded as damage resulting from the wrongful act of that person and actionable accordingly at the suit of the child.

(2) Subject to subsection (3) below and the applied provisions of section 1 of this Act, a person (here referred to as "the defendant") is answerable to the child if he was liable in tort to one or both of the parents (here referred to as "the parent or parents concerned") or would, if sued in due time, have been so; and it is no answer that there could not have been such liability because the parent or parents concerned suffered no actionable injury, if there was a breach of legal duty which, accompanied by injury, would have given rise to the liability.

(3) The defendant is not under this section answerable to the child if at the time the embryo, or the sperm and eggs, are placed in the woman or the time of her insemination (as the case may be) either or both of the parents knew the risk of their child being born disabled (that is to say, the particular risk created by the act or omission).

(4) Subsections (5) to (7) of section 1 of this Act apply for the purposes of this section as they apply for the purposes of that but as if references to the parent or the parent affected were references to the parent or parents concerned."

(2) In section 4 of that Act (interpretation, etc)—

(a) at the end of subsection (2) there is inserted—
"and references to embryos shall be construed in accordance with section 1 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990"
(b) in subsection (3), after "section 1" there is inserted "1A", and
(c) in subsection (4), for "either" there is substituted "any".'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 12

DISCLOSURE IN INTERESTS OF JUSTICE

'(1) Where in any proceedings before a court the question whether a person is or is not the parent of a child by virtue of sections 27 to 29 of this Act falls to be determined, the court may on the application of any party to the proceedings make an order requiring the Authority—

(a) to disclose whether or not any information relevant to that question is contained in the register kept in pursuance of section 30 of this Act, and
(b) if it is, to disclose so much of it as is specified in the order,
but such an order may not require the Authority to disclose any information falling within section 30(2)(b) of this Act.

(2) The court must not make an order under subsection (1) above unless it is satisfied that the interests of justice require it to do so, taking into account—

(a) any representations made by any individual who may be affected by the disclosure, and
(b) the welfare of the child, if under 18 years old, and of any other person under that age who may be affected by the disclosure.

(3) If the proceedings before the court are civil proceedings, it—

(a) may direct that the whole or any part of the proceedings on the application for an order under subsection (2) above shall be heard in camera, and
(b) if it makes such an order, may then or later direct that the whole or any part of any later stage of the proceedings shall be heard in camera.

(4) An application for a direction under subsection (3) above shall be heard in camera unless the court otherwise directs.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 13

DISCLOSURE IN INTERESTS OF JUSTICE: CONGENITAL DISABILITIES, ETC.

'(1) Where for the purpose of instituting proceedings under section 1 of the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 1976 (civil liability to child born disabled) it is necessary to identify a person who would or might be the parent of a child but for sections 27 to 29 of this Act, the court may, on the application of the child, make an order requiring the Authority to disclose any information contained in the register kept in pursuance of section 30 of this Act identifying that person.

(2) Where, for the purposes of any action for damages in Scotland (including any such action which is likely to be brought) in which the damages claimed consist of or include damages or solatium in respect of personal injury (including any disease and any impairment of physical or mental condition), it is necessary to identify a person who would or might be the parent of a child but for sections 27 to 29 of this Act, the court may, on the application of any party to the action or, if the proceedings have not been commenced, the prospective pursuer, make an order requiring the Authority to disclose any information contained in the register kept in pursuance of section 30 of this Act identifying that person.

(3) Subsections (2) to (4) of section [Disclosure in interests of justice] of this Act apply for the purposes of this section as they apply for the purposes of that.

(4) After section 4(4) of the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 1976 there is inserted—

"(4A) In any case where a child carried by a woman as the result of the placing in her of an embryo or of sperm and eggs or her artificial insemination is born disabled, any reference in section 1 of this Act to a parent includes a reference to a person who would be a parent but for sections 27 to 29 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.".'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Further consideration of the Bill adjourned—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Bill, as amended ( in Committee and in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

Aviation and Maritime Security Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 2

EXTENSION OF POWER TO REQUIRE PROMOTION OF SEARCHES

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 4, line 5, after "if" insert "without reasonable excuse".

The Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Mr.Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this, it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 2, 14, 17 to 19, 23, 36 to 38.

Mr. Martin Redmond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Do I understand that the Minister is seeking the leave of the House to move amendments Nos. 1 to 38 collectively?

Madam Deputy Speaker: No. The Minister is moving Lords amendment No. 1 and, by the leave of the House, speaking to the amendments on the Amendment Paper.

Mr. Redmond: I am in order, because some of the amendments do not go far enough. May we vote against the amendments that do not go far enough?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may divide the House on any Lords amendment he wishes. Some may go too far, some not far enough; it is entirely up to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. McLoughlin: The amendments provide for the defence of reasonable excuse for continuing failure to comply with a direction or with an enforcement notice after initial conviction for failure to comply. A person charged with failing to comply with a direction or enforcement notice can call on the defence of reasonable excuse. It therefore seems logical that a reasonable excuse defence in respect of continuing offences should be available. A person may have reasonable excuse for continuing not to comply with a direction or enforcement notice even though he had no excuse at the time when he first failed to comply. An example of that is where an aerodrome manager is convicted of not operating an automatic pass reading system. When charged subsequently with continued failure to comply he could possibly cite as a reasonable excuse defence the inability of the manufacturer to produce equipment without which he could not comply with the direction.
The amendment received support in the other place and I urge the House to support it.

Mr. Peter Snape: As the Minister said, the matter was debated extensively in the other place and in Committee. It appeared to Labour Members to be only reasonable that these words should be added and we agree wholeheartedly with the explanation given by the Minister.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I am not absolutely sure that I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), particularly given the

illustration that the Minister gave the House. He said it is a reasonable excuse for an airport manager to say that some piece of essential equipment was not working. If that were so, it might be his duty to cancel all flights until the safety of the passengers and aircraft were guaranteed.
I support the initiative taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond). Why must the words "with reasonable excuse" be inserted in the Bill? The House did not see fit to include those words in other legislation of equal importance. I had understood that the courts would decide whether an excuse was reasonable, and that the words would not necessarily be required to be inserted in the statute.

Mr. Bob Cryer: During a recent dispute involving aircraft engineers, British Airways management allowed the use of smaller-than-usual bolts around the window fixing on a BAC 111, which led to a weakening of the window. The management could cite "industrial relations difficulties" as a reasonable excuse, which would not be acceptable. There was nearly a tragic end to the story. The bolts were supplied from Heathrow, although the window was fitted in Birmingham.

Mr. Hardy: That is a very good illustration of the problem. It is right for such matters to be brought to the House's attention.

Mr. Snape: I am, as ever, reluctant to intervene in such a fascinating diversion from the Bill, but I must tell my hon. Friend that, after a fairly extensive debate in Committee, I fear that not even he—with his characteristic ingenuity—can convince me that the security duties at any airport in the United Kingdom include checking the windscreens of airliners. Perhaps he—or my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who has an even more distinguished record in regard to revealing such cases—can convince me after all, but, with the best will in the world, I cannot see the relevance of that example.

Mr. Hardy: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the sterling record of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) in the whole sphere of security. I spent part of the morning meeting members of the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers, whose current experience—as the Minister will be well aware—does not convince me that the Government are particularly committed to the cause of safety. If my hon. Friend is right, and they are concerned about safety at airports, I can only regret that that deep concern does not extend further. But I do not want to strain your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This not in the Bill.

Mr. Hardy: Indeed, it is not; I was merely making a passing reference.

Mr. Cryer: During industrial disputes, all sorts of reasons can be adduced. Although there is no direct connection, the fact that the Bill is connected with security would not prevent the actions of security men from being invoked as being perfectly proper—even if, during an industrial dispute, there was no reasonable excuse for those actions.

Mr. Hardy: I am glad that I gave way to my hon. Friend. Although I have no wish to detain the House, I shall give way again—to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley.

Mr. Redmond: The question of security could arise in relation to the maintenance of spare parts. As the recent incident involving the aircraft window demonstrates, aircraft work to fine tolerances. Let us suppose that someone gained access to the stores where material and spare parts are kept, and deliberately changed the bolts around. Every fitter assumes that the dimensions of a bolt—five-eights of an inch, for instance—are as they should be, and therefore will not bother to measure it.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We have had a nice tour, but I think that the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) should now return to the amendment.

Mr. Hardy: The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley is relevant—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not.

Mr. Hardy: We are talking about the phrase "without reasonable excuse". If someone interferes with the stores and the wrong screw, nut, bolt or attachment is used, many people could be maimed or killed; however, it could provide someone with an excuse which is not acceptable and which does not apply under a vast proportion of the laws of the land.
I cannot understand why the Government are prepared to take a relaxed view by seeking to maintain the view adopted in the other place that the words "without reasonable excuse" can be added to the Bill. I am amazed that the Government should want to allow such superfluity to be part of the legislation.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend is getting to a serious point. The inquiries into the recent near crash of the British Airways plane, when the wrong bolts were inserted in the window fittings, may reveal that the matter comes within the parameters of security. Clearly the fitting of the wrong bolts resulted in the screen blowing out and serious injury to the pilot and could have caused serious injury to many passengers.

Mr. Hardy: This is a serious matter. It was a serious matter for the pilot and it could have been serious for a large number of passengers. It is not a matter which we should treat lightly or about which we should make frivolous speeches. I do not wish to detain the House long.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Hear, hear.

Mr. Hardy: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that we are being frivolous in referring to these matters, he should have another think. We are not detaining the House long. I asked the Minister why these words should be added to the Bill when they are not added to many pieces of statute which may be of equal or greater importance. I am sure that the House would be grateful if the Minister could give the reasons, without again quoting the example which destroyed his case and which led me to join the debate rather than simply vote with my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley. If the hon. Gentleman cannot offer a convincing and better reason, I suggest that my hon. Friend should maintain his determination to divide the House.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: My hon. Friends have raised the issue of safety, linked to security, because of a fair argument. Recently, British Airways decided to impose a 12-hour shift. In doing so, it was endangering not only safety but security. Anyone would understand that, once the decision was made to tell the 7,000 workers that they had to work 12 hours, their output would not be the same as it would be over six, seven or eight hours.
This matter brings into focus what the amendment is about. The Government are saying that not only can British Airways impose a 12-hour shift but they will give it the opportunity to say that it has a reasonable excuse. Let us not beat about the bush on this matter. Can anyone say that the two aspects are not interrelated? My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) should make a much longer explanation because he has not convinced me.

Mr. Snape: I realise that convincing my hon. Friend of anything, particularly at 11.53 in the evening, is no easy task—

Mr. Skinner: I do not go in the bar—you do.

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. Snape: I think that I can treat that remark by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) with the contempt that it deserves.

Mr. Skinner: That is what "late at night" means.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Snape: All I am saying to my hon. Friend, if I can retain his attention for a few more seconds before he goes out to wherever he is going, is that during the debates in Committee and in another place, these amendments referred purely to those matters that directly impinge on airport security. I admire my hon. Friend's ingenuity in raising these matters, but they do not arise directly out of our debates, or those in another place.

Mr. Skinner: But they do arise, because some people may not be wide awake after 12 hours, or at 11.53 pm. But I am. British Airways' decision to impose a 12-hour shift brings more clearly into focus what the Bill is about. Therefore, it is right to ask questions about the imposition of 12-hour shifts, which have a bearing on security. The management at Heathrow, doing somebody else's job, had to send the bolts to Birmingham. Management was trying to do the job of 7,000 people, so safety and security at Heathrow were jeopardised. The wrong bolts were sent to Birmingham and fitted to the windscreen. Somebody nearly lost his life when the windscreen blew out. The Minister must explain why it is necessary to give the power in the amendment—that of "without reasonable excuse"—when management is prepared, without reasonable excuse, to trample on the rights and conditions of workers at Heathrow and elsewhere. It is bound to affect safety and security.
We are right to draw the matter to the Minister's attention. We do not want Ministers to stand at the Dispatch Box when the next industrial dispute arises and say that people should work a 12-hour shift at Heathrow, thereby putting people's lives at risk, or that management should be allowed to do the jobs of 7,000 engineers.

Mr. Redmond: My hon. Friend referred to the Government's double standards. They claim that the


amendment will improve safety. However, the Leader of the House said that the industrial dispute to which my hon. Friend referred had not put anyone in danger. We all know of the near-tragic consequences of the Government's indifference, due to their support of and collaboration with the management of British Airways.

Mr. Skinner: Let us suppose that in the event of another industrial dispute—British Airways doing what it did the other week, with a few hundred management staff carrying out the work of 7,000 engineers—some of the management staff are connected with security. If they do the engineers' job in order to break the strike, what will happen to security? The Minister must answer that question. Is he prepared to say that in those circumstances the defence of "without reasonable excuse" will not apply? British Airways' arrogant management might be prepared to do the same again. It should not be allowed to refer to the words "without reasonable excuse" and get away with what is literally murder.

Mr. Harry Cohen: My hon. Friend is making a valid and important point. Can he interpret the words, "reasonable excuse" as they relate to strike breaking? Is he suggesting that those words would be intepreted by a judge to mean that if management became involved in strike breaking that would represent a reasonable excuse? Does my hon. Friend agree that that is an industrial relations matter that should not be dealt with in such a Bill?

Mr. Skinner: Of course I do. That is why the Government put it in. It would allow the management of British Airways or any other company to say, "We did not really want an incident involving security to occur, but we had reasonable excuse."

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have given the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) a long run now. I refer him to the clause that we are discussing which deals with the extension of power to require promotion of searches. I am sure that with his ingenuity he can return to the amendments before us.

12 midnight

Mr. Skinner: It is not a matter of needing ingenuity. I am trying to explain that in the event of an industrial dispute, if the management does what it did the other week, it can say to those working in security who are engaged in searches, "We are short of people here. We have 7,000 people on strike because we have tried to impose a 12-hour day. We have 400 management trying to do the jobs of those engineers, so we are asking you security people to come off your jobs, forget your searches and get involved in strike breaking." If the management can do that in one respect, as it did the other week, it can do it in another respect.
The amendment gives the nod and the wink to the judges so that in the event of an incident occurring the management would be able to say, "We had a reasonable excuse because we had to transfer security workers to do the engineers' work." That is what could happen in those circumstances. That is why we need an assurance from the Minister that those words would not apply in the event of an industrial dispute.

Mr. Redmond: It is becoming quite clear that we need to examine the amendment in a little more depth. We are all aware that when Bills are considered in Committee the

Government will tolerate only a certain amount of discussion before they impose a guillotine. I listened intently to what the Minister said when he moved the amendment, but it was the usual civil service legal gobbledegook. The examples and explanations that he gave did not fill me with any confidence.
The amendment is crucial to the Bill and needs to be examined closely. I am concerned about the safety of my constituents. There is no doubt that security has been lax at our aerodromes through which people travel all over the world.
I take great objection to the argument relating to a "reasonable excuse". It gives management a blank cheque and enables managers to commit any misdemeanour or laxity in their duties and endanger security. A manager would be able to say to himself, "I shall not do it all. I shall not bother with my inspection. I shall get back to my tower and scan round the airport" because 12-hour shifts make people tired.
It is dangerous for the manager to do his job knowing that he can fall back on the "reasonable excuse". If workers do not do their jobs properly, they cannot fall back on a "reasonable excuse"; it is their problem. The management can pass the buck down the chain of command, but it stops at the poor lad on the shop floor when it could well be that the management is at fault. Over the years I have met many managers; there have been good managers and bad ones. I would not tolerate bad management and I hope that the Minister would not tolerate it either. He should remove the blank cheque—the reasonable excuse—provision in the amendment. We must make management accountable.
Much legislation since 1979 has made workers and trade unions accountable for what happens within their structure. Now, because of major accidents that have occurred for a variety of reasons, including terrorism and negligence, the Government are trying to improve security through this Bill. They have taken a tiny step instead of a gigantic leap. If they had taken a gigantic leap, this amendment, all the other amendments and the Bill itself would have fallen flat on the floor.
I shall gladly give way to the Minister if he wants to respond to me. I am not willing to accept an amendment that gives bad or slack management the opportunity to slip through the net. Management should be as accountable as anyone else and that applies to managers and blue collar workers. Even at this late stage, I hope that the Minister will consider what we have said tonight.
The Minister spoke for only about 60 seconds about the important matter of security. That was not good enough. He should give a detailed explanation of why the amendment should be passed. I care about my constituents and I will not tolerate the blank cheque approach and the Government's reasonable excuse provision. No civilised society would accept such a blank cheque on security. When the folly of the amendment becomes apparent the Opposition will be pressing for statements on incidents that will arise as a result of the reasonable excuse provision.
No doubt the Government will fetch out the troops to ensure that the amendment is passed, but the Minister should study seriously whether we are making any progress as a result of the amendment. The people who travel from or to British airports have a right to expect first-class security. They will not get that with the amendment, because it gives management, which is


supposed to supervise and ensure that regulations and legislation such as this measure are carried out, a blank cheque. It is unacceptable for the House to pass a lowering of standards.
The reasonable excuse defence lets the management and the Government off the hook. If an incident occurred and the management invoked the reasonable excuse provision the Government would behave like Pontius Pilate. They would say that the Opposition accepted the situation that gave management a reasonable excuse. The management is there to manage according to the law.
The Minister cannot claim that the worker at the bottom of the ladder must accept every tiny piece of legislation that passes through the House. The worker is accountable and can be sacked or hauled before the courts for breaching the laws of this land. It will be a case of one law operating for the lad at the bottom and another for the people at the top. We should not have double standards. We should treat everyone the same. If the "reasonable excuse" provision is included, it gives the impression—

Mr. Cohen: I should like to hear my hon. Friend's interpretation of the phrase "reasonable excuse". As a result of the Government's high interest rate policy, for example, many people may not have the money to go on trips and to fly and there might not be enough bums on seats. In those circumstances, the aircraft company might not be making enough profit and might therefore cut the numbers of staff who do the security searches. Does my hon. Friend think that those not unlikely circumstances come within the "reasonable excuse" get-out?

Mr. Redmond: I am conscious of what you said previously, Madam Deputy Speaker, but my hon. Friend makes a good point. The first duty of any company is to ensure that a dividend is paid to the shareholders. Regrettably, in the past, industry has been allowed to decline and there has not been any investment. My hon. Friend's point is therefore valid because if people are frightened to use those airports and aeroplanes, financial factors begin to come into play. One of the first things that a company will do is to get shot of some staff at the bottom end to save wages. To save money, managements always say, "Let's get rid of some of the lads at the bottom." Of course, that also means that management salaries can increase as a result of that cost-efficiency exercise.
Regrettably, history shows many examples of managements refusing to invest in safety—safety comes a very poor second to profit. However, because of legislation that the House is about to pass—I am certain that the Government will not withdraw the Lords amendment—there are added implications for the future. I hope that the Minister will give a more detailed explanation of the other amendments that we are to consider and the Government's view of them. I did not serve on the Standing Committee and should like an explanation now. Perhaps if we received that, we could avoid a number of Divisions tonight, although we shall certainly seek to divide the House on this amendment.

Mr. Harry Barnes: I wish to make two brief points only. First, the "without reasonable excuse" provision appears in this bunch of amendments no fewer than 10 times. The Bill is therefore shot through with it.

However—this is my second point—it has already appeared earlier in the Bill and is of particular significance to the first amendment. It is possible that in court the "reasonable excuse" defence could be used in connection with the offences that are referred to in this clause. On summary conviction, someone could therefore be fined, in accordance with the provisions of clause 2(3). However, subsection (4) to which Lords amendment No. 1 relates, which seeks to add the "without reasonable excuse" provision, deals with further offences. That means that a person could have been convicted by a court despite using the defence that there was a "reasonable excuse" for what had been done. But that has been overturned. Following conviction, however, the same defence is available for similar occurrences. That enables excuses to be built upon excuses. There would be a serious problem where there was found to be danger, someone was convicted and the offence was repeated. These considerations apply to 10 amendments that extend throughout the Bill. As I have said, the excuse can be built upon and multiplied. This worries my hon. Friends and I a great deal.

Mr. McLoughlin: I find it deplorable that Opposition Members seek to link a tragic accident that is under investigation by the air accident investigation branch with a lack of care by the management about its staff and the way in which it operates. I find that approach deplorable but not surprising, because of some of the quarters that have adopted it. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the accident as it is under investigation. Anyone with close links with the aviation industry would not contemplate that management would put crew—its employees—and passengers at risk at any stage. Any suggestion to the contrary is deplorable and I dissociate myself from it. I am sure that when Opposition spokesmen think about it they will take the same view as I do.
It is ludicrous that an attempt is being made to circumvent enforcement notice legislation. I must give some praise to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) for drawing attention to current legislative provisions. It would be nonsensical for such provisions not to apply in later parts of the Bill.
At the beginning of the debate I gave the example of an aerodrome manager who is convicted of not operating an automatic reading system. If his defence is that manufacturers were unable to produce the piece of equipment that he required, I think that that would be a reasonable excuse. It is not for me, however, to say what is a reasonable excuse. That is a matter for the courts to decide once a charge is brought against an operator for failing to comply with a direction. The courts could decide that there was a reasonable excuse even if it did not apply to statute law.
I am surprised by some of the comments that have been made this evening. Until our consideration of Lords amendments there was agreement throughout the Chamber about the nature of the Bill. The House did not divide on Second Reading. Until this evening there has been a reasonable approach and agreement between both sides of the House. The Bill is vital and I deplore the way in which some hon. Members are trying to sabotage it at this late stage of its consideration.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 111, Noes 23.

Division No. 244]
[12.18 am


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Irvine, Michael


Amess, David
Jack, Michael


Amos, Alan
Jackson, Robert


Arbuthnot, James
Janman, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Ashby, David
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Batiste, Spencer
Lightbown, David


Beith, A. J.
Lilley, Peter


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Livsey, Richard


Boswell, Tim
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Bowis, John
McLoughlin, Patrick


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Mates, Michael


Brazier, Julian
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Bright, Graham
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Mitchell, Sir David


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Monro, Sir Hector


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Moss, Malcolm


Burns, Simon
Neubert, Michael


Burt, Alistair
Nicholls, Patrick


Butterfill, John
Norris, Steve


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Page, Richard


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Paice, James


Carrington, Matthew
Patnick, Irvine


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Porter, David (Waveney)


Chapman, Sydney
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Chope, Christopher
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Day, Stephen
Shelton, Sir William


Devlin, Tim
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Dover, Den
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Durant, Tony
Summerson, Hugo


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Favell, Tony
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Fearn, Ronald
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Forth, Eric
Thurnham, Peter


Franks, Cecil
Twinn, Dr Ian


Freeman, Roger
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Gill, Christopher
Wallace, James


Goodlad, Alastair
Waller, Gary


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Gregory, Conal
Watts, John


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Wells, Bowen


Ground, Patrick
Wheeler, Sir John


Hague, William
Widdecombe, Ann


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Wigley, Dafydd


Hanley, Jeremy
Wilkinson, John


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)



Harris, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hayward, Robert
Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. John M. Taylor.


Hind, Kenneth



Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)





NOES


Ashton, Joe
Meale, Alan


Buckley, George J.
Nellist, Dave


Canavan, Dennis
Patchett, Terry


Cohen, Harry
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Cryer, Bob
Redmond, Martin


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Skinner, Dennis


Fyfe, Maria
Vaz, Keith


Hardy, Peter
Wareing, Robert N.


Haynes, Frank
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Hood, Jimmy



Illsley, Eric
Tellers for the Noes:


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Mr. Harry Barnes and Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)



Mahon, Mrs Alice

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister declared that for the House to scrutinise Lords amendments was sabotage. He claimed that there was agreement between the two sides of the House over the Bill in this place. Surely we cannot be accused of any such behaviour, when we are deeply concerned about safety and security at airports at all times. We are dealing with Lords amendments, and it is part of our duty to scrutinise them and to express our views on them. To regard that as sabotage is an outrageous attack on our democratic procedures.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is hardly a point of order for me. As the hon. Member knows, every right hon. and hon. Member in the House is responsible for his or her comments.

Clause 4

ENFORCEMENT NOTICES IN RESPECT OF DIRECTIONS UNDER PART II OF AVIATION SECURITY ACT 1982

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 7, line 14, after "if" insert "without reasonable excuse".

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 109, Noes 17.

Division No. 245]
[12.32 pm


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Fishburn, John Dudley


Amess, David
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Amos, Alan
Forth, Eric


Arbuthnot, James
Franks, Cecil


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Freeman, Roger


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Ashby, David
Gill, Christopher


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Goodlad, Alastair


Batiste, Spencer
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Beith, A. J.
Gregory, Conal


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Ground, Patrick


Boswell, Tim
Hague, William


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bowis, John
Hanley, Jeremy


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Brazier, Julian
Harris, David


Bright, Graham
Hayward, Robert


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hind, Kenneth


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Irvine, Michael


Burns, Simon
Jack, Michael


Burt, Alistair
Jackson, Robert


Butterfill, John
Janman, Tim


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Carrington, Matthew
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Chapman, Sydney
Lightbown, David


Chope, Christopher
Lilley, Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Livsey, Richard


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Day, Stephen
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Devlin, Tim
McLoughlin, Patrick


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Dover, Den
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Durant, Tony
Mitchell, Sir David


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Monro, Sir Hector


Favell, Tony
Moss, Malcolm


Fearn, Ronald
Neubert, Michael






Nicholls, Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Norris, Steve
Thurnham, Peter


Page, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Paice, James
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Patnick, Irvine
Wallace, James


Porter, David (Waveney)
Waller, Gary


Raffan, Keith
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Watts, John


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wells, Bowen


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wheeler, Sir John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Widdecombe, Ann


Shelton, Sir William
Wigley, Dafydd


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wilkinson, John


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)



Summerson, Hugo
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. John M. Taylor.


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)



Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)





NOES


Ashton, Joe
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Meale, Alan


Buckley, George J.
Nellist, Dave


Cohen, Harry
Patchett, Terry


Corbyn, Jeremy
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Cryer, Bob
Skinner, Dennis


Graham, Thomas



Hardy, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Haynes, Frank
Mr. Michael Welsh and Mr. Martin Redmond.


Hood, Jimmy



Illsley, Eric

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 5

OFFENCES RELATING TO SECURITY AT AERODROMES ETC. I982 C. 36

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 9, line 37, leave out or".

Mr. McLoughlin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 4, 7, 8, 9, 25, 26 and 29 to 30.

Mr. McLoughlin: The purpose of the amendments is to add the police to the list of persons to whom it would be an offence under section 21A of the Aviation Security Act 1982 and clause 37 of the Bill to make a false statement in answer to questions relating to baggage, cargo or stores intended for carriage by a civil aircraft or by sea.
The amendments also make it an offence under section 21 A—[Interruption.]

Mr. Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry that I had to shout, but the Minister was in full flow. Do I take it that the Minister is attempting to shove all the Lords amendments through in one go, or will we be able to deal separately with those that are perhaps not strong enough or acceptable to the Opposition? I should be grateful if you would enlighten us.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman. We are discussing the amendments together, as suggested by the Minister in charge of the Bill. The Minister has moved Lords amendment No. 3 and is explaining the other Lords amendment grouped with it. That is the customary procedure when we deal with Lords amendments to a Bill.

Mr. Redmond: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do I take it, then, that the Minister is speaking to Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 32?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are discussing Lords amendment No. 3 together with the other Lords amendments grouped with it.

Mr. Redmond: Up to Lords amendment No. 32.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As on the selection list; that is right.

Mr. McLoughlin: As I was saying, the amendments also make it an offence under new section 21 B of the Aviation Security Act 1982 and clause 38 of the Bill to give false information to a constable in connection with the continued holding of an identity document.
The amendments would tidy up the Bill and make it clear that it would be an offence for any person travelling through our airports to give false information to those in a position to ask for information. The amendment is wholly sensible, and the House should give it the go-ahead.

Mr. Hardy: I had not anticipated speaking again, and I should not have done so had the Minister given way in his reply to our previous debate. In any case, my point is relevant to the present group of amendments.
The Minister appeared to pay tribute to hon. Members on both sides of the House for working together to produce a splendid Bill. In many respects, the Bill is acceptable, sound and worth while. But if, as a result of the co-operation of hon. Members, the Bill was as good as the Minister claims it was when it left this House, why was it necessary for the House of Lords to table a whole lot of amendments, some of which seem to me absurd and none of which appears to be very helpful?
I am worried about the previous group of amendments, on which further votes may well be called if the Government's attitude does not improve. As far as I can see, the amendments that were carried in the other place may well persuade the Crown prosecution service that it will be virtually impossible to bring a prosecution for an offence under the Bill. I am not a lawyer, so I do not know whether that suspicion is well founded, but I have heard nothing from the Government Benches to alleviate it.
Lords amendments Nos. 3, 7 and 9 would delete the word "or". Lords amendment No. 5 would insert the word "constable", and Lords amendment No. 8 also refers to a constable. Why do we have to delete the word "or" when hon. Members on both sides of the House were firmly of the view, before the Bill went to the other place, that that word was necessary? Why did the House of Lords decide that that word should be removed, and why have the Government accepted the omission of the word without giving this House an explanation?
I am also concerned about the reference to "a person or constable". I am raising that now so as not to have to address the House on another amendment, but my point is relevant because the amendments are grouped. I see no reason why we have to use the word "constable" and the word "person" when either would suffice. A policeman is a human being, is he not? Or perhaps the Government have changed their approach to the constabulary. Do we need to insert the word "constable" when hon. Members decided that it was not necessary?
The Minister has not persuaded us at all; he has given no explanation, but he calls us saboteurs for seeking to


defend a decision that the House enthusiastically and unanimously endorsed. That is a foolish and ill-advised approach. He should consider his position a little more carefully.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 108, Noes 18.

Division No. 246]
[12.50 am


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Hind, Kenneth


Amess, David
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Amos, Alan
Irvine, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Jack, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Jackson, Robert


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Janman, Tim


Ashby, David
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Batiste, Spencer
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Beith, A. J.
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Boswell, Tim
Lightbown, David


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Lilley, Peter


Bowis, John
Livsey, Richard


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Brazier, Julian
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Bright, Graham
McLoughlin, Patrick


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Mitchell, Sir David


Burns, Simon
Monro, Sir Hector


Burt, Alistair
Moss, Malcolm


Butterfill, John
Neubert, Michael


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Nicholls, Patrick


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Norris, Steve


Carrington, Matthew
Page, Richard


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Paice, James


Chapman, Sydney
Patnick, Irvine


Chope, Christopher
Porter, David (Waveney)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Raffan, Keith


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Day, Stephen
Sackville, Hon Tom


Devlin, Tim
Shaw, David (Dover)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Shelton, Sir William


Dover, Den
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Durant, Tony
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Summerson, Hugo


Fallon, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Favell, Tony
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Fearn, Ronald
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Thurnham, Peter


Forth, Eric
Twinn, Dr Ian


Franks, Cecil
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Freeman, Roger
Wallace, James


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Waller, Gary


Gill, Christopher
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Goodlad, Alastair
Watts, John


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Wells, Bowen


Gregory, Conal
Wheeler, Sir John


Ground, Patrick
Widdecombe, Ann


Hague, William
Wigley, Dafydd


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Wilkinson, John


Hanley, Jeremy



Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Harris, David
Mr. Nicholas Baker and Mr. Timothy Wood.


Hayward, Robert





NOES


Ashton, Joe
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Buckley, George J.
Meale, Alan


Cohen, Harry
Nellist, Dave


Corbyn, Jeremy
Patchett, Terry


Cryer, Bob
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Graham, Thomas
Redmond, Martin


Hardy, Peter
Skinner, Dennis


Haynes, Frank



Hood, Jimmy
Tellers for the Noes:


Illsley, Eric
Mr. Harry Barnes and Mr. Michael Welsh.


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 9, line 39, at end insert
or
(iii) by a constable,

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 107, Noes 17.

Division No. 247]
[1.02 am


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Amess, David
Irvine, Michael


Amos, Alan
Jack, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Jackson, Robert


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Janman, Tim


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Ashby, David
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Batiste, Spencer
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Beith, A. J.
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lightbown, David


Boswell, Tim
Lilley, Peter


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Livsey, Richard


Bowis, John
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Bright, Graham
McLoughlin, Patrick


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Mitchell, Sir David


Burns, Simon
Monro, Sir Hector


Burt, Alistair
Moss, Malcolm


Butterfill, John
Neubert, Michael


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Nicholls, Patrick


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Norris, Steve


Carrington, Matthew
Page, Richard


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Paice, James


Chapman, Sydney
Patnick, Irvine


Chope, Christopher
Porter, David (Waveney)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Raffan, Keith


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Day, Stephen
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Devlin, Tim
Sackville, Hon Tom


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Shaw, David (Dover)


Dover, Den
Shelton, Sir William


Durant, Tony
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Fallon, Michael
Summerson, Hugo


Favell, Tony
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Fearn, Ronald
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Forth, Eric
Thurnham, Peter


Franks, Cecil
Twinn, Dr Ian


Freeman, Roger
Wallace, James


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Waller, Gary


Gill, Christopher
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Goodlad, Alastair
Watts, John


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Wells, Bowen


Gregory, Conal
Wheeler, Sir John


Ground, Patrick
Widdecombe, Ann


Hague, William
Wigley, Dafydd


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Wilkinson, John


Hanley, Jeremy



Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Harris, David
Mr. Nicholas Baker and Mr. Timothy Wood.


Hayward, Robert



Hind, Kenneth





NOES


Ashton, Joe
Haynes, Frank


Buckley, George J.
Hood, Jimmy


Cohen, Harry
Illsley, Eric


Corbyn, Jeremy
Meale, Alan


Cryer, Bob
Nellist, Dave


Graham, Thomas
Patchett, Terry


Hardy, Peter
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)






Redmond, Martin
Tellers for the Noes:


Skinner, Dennis
Mrs. Alice Mahon and Mr. Harry Barnes.


Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Unfortunately, I was unable to raise this matter previously. When I was teller in the Ayes Lobby three votes ago, I noticed that an hon. Member that went through the Aye Lobby was carrying a dagger. Is it in order for an hon. Member to carry a dagger when he is going through a voting Lobby?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Offensive weapons are not allowed, but it may well have been a ceremonial one.

Mr. Redmond: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I accept what you say, but whether it was for decoration or for another purpose, it could still be used to inflict a wound. I am concerned that an hon. Member went through a Lobby carrying a decorative dagger: if he was ill, he might be tempted to use it. Whether for decoration or for some other reason, is it correct for an hon. Member to carry a dagger?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is well able to look after himself. However, I assure him that the Chair will always look after him.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You may be aware that the Standing Committee to consider the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill held its first sitting on Tuesday. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), the hon. Member who was carrying the dagger in question, was accused on Tuesday of stabbing his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) in the back. Therefore, it might be dangerous for the hon. Member for Tayside, North to be allowed to carry such a weapon in the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that we had better proceed with the business before the House.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. What happens in a Standing Committee is a matter for the Chairman of the Standing Committee, not for me.

Mr. Nellist: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you consider further the advice that you gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) about the wearing of ceremonial or non-ceremonial items that could be described as weapons, such as the dagger in question? I know of a case in the past few days in which a Sikh lady was dismissed from work for wearing a ceremonial Sikh dagger. If there is to be a definitive ruling about what is or is not permissible in terms of decoration and the wearing of ceremonial weapons in this Chamber, I would be grateful for a considered ruling because it may assist in other areas of employment legislation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not aware of anything that is likely to cause any danger to any hon. Member. We should now proceed to consider Lords amendment No. 5 and the others grouped with it.

Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 10, line 10, leave out "course of his duty" and insert
exercise of the power conferred by section 20(2)(aa) of this Act

Mr. McLoughlin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 5, 6, 11, 24, 27, 28, 33, and 41.

Mr. McLoughlin: This group of amendments would confer statutory authority on authorised persons to investigate and test the security practices and procedures operated by those to whom a direction can be given. It is important that those investigations and tests can be carried out, because they play a very important and necessary role in improving aviation and maritime security.

Mr. Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should be grateful if you would ask the Minister to speak slower instead of gabbling through his speech. I am having great difficulty in hearing what he is saying. If I cannot hear what he is saying, I am suspicious. Will you ask the Minister to speak a little more slowly and clearly?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the Minister will have noted the hon. Gentleman's request.

Mr. McLoughlin: However, we cannot afford to ignore the fact that they might, in exceptional circumstances, have a harmful effect on commercial operations. Therefore, the Government consider it necessary to have statutory authority so that checks to secure adherence to security procedures are not inhibited. Anyone who votes against this amendment would be putting profit before security—something that the Government would not contemplate.
Although the tests will be planned to avoid causing delays at airports and ports, it is not beyond the realms of possibility, for example, that an inspector carrying out a test on baggage reconciliation might cause delay to the aircraft and its passengers. That might lead to those affected claiming for damages for financial loss against those carrying out the tests, or against the Department of Transport for negligence or interference with contractual relations. It therefore seems a sensible precaution to have explicit statutory powers relating to the investigation and testing of security practices and procedures. Such powers should avoid claims being laid, provided the tests or the investigations were properly carried out for the purposes described in the enabling provision.
I repeat that hon. Members who vote against the Lords amendments will be putting profit before security, which is something that Conservative Members will not do.

Mr. Snape: The House listened to the Minister with interest, but we might have been slightly more impressed if he had made that speech at an earlier stage of our proceedings, when it was tentatively suggested that in its then form the Bill might well give rise to accusations that the Government were putting profit before safety—

Mr. McLoughlin: indicated dissent.

Mr. Snape: The Minister shakes his head, but if he reads the Official Report of our previous deliberations, he will see that that was pointed out. We are grateful at least that, even at the 11th hour, the Bill, which my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) described as "perfect" when it left this place on its mission to another, has been amended in the way that it has. We have always felt that the Bill should make statutory provision for security checks at Britain's air and sea ports. No one would suggest that, in the Bill as it now stands, the Government would put profit before safety. Indeed, they have now established the principle that that is the last thing in their mind. We look forward to them allowing that principle to be extended so that it can embrace the other forms of transport over which the Department of Transport is charged with statutory responsibilities, because many of my hon. Friends feel that the Department has put profit before safety all too tragically often for other modes of transport.

Mr. Hardy: I am sure that the Minister will recall what my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) has just said, when he quoted me saying that when the Bill left this House it was perfect.
Lords amendment No. 5 presents an interesting situation. It relates to clause 5, which states:
a person commits an offence if, in answer to a question … he makes a statement which he knows to be false".
However, if someone makes a false statement under the provisions of subsection (3), which is covered by the amendment, he does not commit an offence if he makes that false statement as an "authorised person". Therefore, if a man is an "authorised person", he can make as many false statements as he likes.
I am glad to hear that the Government are today more concerned about safety than about profit, but their record suggests that they have a great deal of sympathy with people who make false statements. That is beyond all doubt.
I want to know under what circumstances a person in an authorised position would be required to tell lies, to make false statements and—presumably—to be relieved of responsibility in the course of his duty. I note that the House of Lords wants to remove the words, "course of his duty", and to replace them with
exercise of the power conferred by section 20(2)(aa)",
but for the life of me I cannot see why we have to legislate to allow people to tell lies. Yet that is clearly what the amendment seeks to provide. The Minister must explain that, otherwise my earlier assessment of the Bill as commendable will have to be dramatically reviewed.

Mr. McLoughlin: rose—

Mr. Hardy: I have finished.

Mr. McLoughlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not clear whether the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) is giving way to the Minister.

Mr. Hardy: I was sitting down and had concluded, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I shall give way.

Mr. McLoughlin: The amendment is simple. It means that those who are required to test the security measures have the power to do so. If they were not allowed to give

false information, they could not check the procedures. The provisions relate only to someone authorised under subsection (1). I am sure that that makes logical sense.

Mr. Hardy: Obviously I shall have to resume my speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
One is well aware that people operating in defence of society and of the consumer will require such protection, but if the Minister reads clause 5, he will see that a person commits an offence if he makes such a statement
in answer to a question".
If the question is asked by a suspect or a terrorist, fair enough, the individual charged with protecting society will clearly give a false statement, but that is not the offence that would be committed. The offence would be committed if the authorised person gave a false answer to someone who was authorised to ask him the question. He would not be charged with committing an offence if he misled a terrorist. The Bill will give him the power to be protected if he makes a false statement to an authorised person what was entitled to ask him the question. The Minister needs to reconsider that part of the Bill, or at least to ensure that the amendment which stood before the other place when it interfered with the Bill receives the disapproval of the Government rather than their approval..

Mr. Cryer: The House is exercising its right and its duty to examine legislation. The fact that the Government have brought the Bill before us at a late hour—they have been overloading the legislature with a great deal of legislation—is not the fault of Opposition Members who are in their place tonight. The fault lies with the Government, whom the Minister was so eager to join. It does not add lustre to the House if the Minister, after gabbling through a speech written and typed out for him by civil servants, sits down with a smirk on his face to an organised chorus of assent from Tory Members who want the Lords amendments to go through on the nod so that the Government are not subject to any inconvenience such as explaining what the Bill is about.
We have before us a curious amendment. It removes the final six words from:
subsection (1) above does not apply … to any statement made by an authorised person in the course of his duty.
That is done to relate to the Aviation Security Act 1982. The deletion of those words removes the offence committed by a person who answers a question levelled at him or her by an authorised person, if the person who responds provides information about baggage, cargo or stores in a reckless way, or knowingly in such a manner that the statement
is false in a material particular.
In what circumstances would any person in an airport, carrying out his duty under section 22A of the Aviation Security Act 1982—it relates to the inspection of aeroplanes—be authorised to have removed from him the obligation of providing truthful information in relation to baggage, cargo or stores?
The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) is muttering that the Minister will have the information. That is all well and good. If he has, it would have been prudent for him to provide it, without gabbling, when he introduced the amendment.
There is no merit in saying that the House is being inconvenienced. I remind the House that we are being inconvenienced not because Opposition Members are


raising issues but because the Government are abusing the legislature to the extent that they cannot get this stage of the consideration of the Bill through the House in 24 hours unless they have hon. Members nodding in assent. It is disgraceful that the Government should adopt a complacent attitude and decide to keep about 100 of their troops in the House. It is deplorable that they mutter and grumble because we are spending more than the five or 10 minutes that the Government Whips expected would be the time spent considering the Lords amendments to the Bill. That is what it boils down to, and the Whips even had the effrontry to table other motions following that long list of complicated amendments, knowing full well that we started debating a complicated piece of legislation in the middle of the afternoon and finished discussing it at 11 pm.
Let us not have any more little smirks from the Minister after he has concluded his gabbling and got through his speeches in record time in order to justify his presence at the Dispatch Box. He is there to provide the House with some sort of explanation, which, by common consent, he has failed to do—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If I am wrong, I am sure that Conservative Members will be only too eager to spring to their feet and give an explanation to back up the Minister.
1.30 am
When I started my brief comments, not a single Tory was rising, so I find it remarkable that they make muttered comments, as they sit on their backside, nodding their heads in eager anticipation that this legislation will slide through. They have not been leaping to their feet in order to give the Minister the help that he so clearly needs.
It worries me that, under the Aviation Security Act 1982, section 20(2)(aa) states:
An authorised person inspecting an aircraft or any part of an aerodrome under subsection (1) above"—
—a direction given by the Secretary of State—
(a) Shall have power—to subject any property found by him in the aircraft (but not the aircraft itself or any apparatus or equipment installed in it) or, as the case may be, to subject that part of the aerodrome or any property found by him there, to such tests".
That person is clearly taking part in the organised security operation of the airport, which we welcome and encourage by this legislation.
What are the circumstances in which a person, engaged in a security operation, should fail to give information that, according to clause 5 of the Bill
relates to any baggage, cargo or stores (whether belonging to him or to another) that is or are intended for carriage by a civil aircraft registered or operating in the United Kingdom"'?
The effect of the amendment is to remove that obligation. That leads to a reasonable amount of questioning.
I do not suppose that the civil servants who drafted the Minister's speeches, and probably the amendments, are trying to produce confused legislation. It will be used by people and refers to another Act that has to be brought into operation. People must understand the legislation to enforce it, but it is not the clearest, and it will help if the Minister gives a clear—not necessarily lengthy, but not gabbled—explanation to the House of what the legislation means.
If the Minister does that, our deliberations are on record, and it assists people in the operation of legislation if there is a clear explanation so that they can refer to other legislation before employing the services of a solicitor or

barrister. We legislate for the common use of ordinary citizens. We should bear it in mind that the legislation that goes out from this place should be as simple, comprehensive and comprehensible as we can make it.
I make a plea to the Minister to give an explanation that the citizen can read, learn, inwardly digest and of which we can take advantage. By common consent, certainly of Opposition Members, and, I suspect, of Conservative Members, that has not, so far, been provided tonight.

Mr. Redmond: Earlier I raised a point of order about the way in which the Minister for Aviation and Shipping delivered his speech on the amendments. I asked that he be requested to speak a little more slowly and clearly so that we could understand what he was saying. Unfortunately, his arrogance and conceit prohibited him from doing that.
I oppose the amendment because it would authorise people to lie. One should tell the truth and fear nowt. The Bill contains ways to promote security at aerodromes without telling lies. Airport security is breached many times. Some lads invaded Heathrow airport and tried to board a plane and took photographs to show how easy it was. This is not a good Bill. If the Minister had introduced a good Bill all these Lords amendments would not be needed. He is saying that airport security cannot be tested without lying. I do not accept that, nor do I accept that by voting against the amendment we will be voting for profit rather than safety. That is no way to proceed.
The Minister engaged in bombast in trying to push through the amendment and that showed his arrogance. The amendments should be discussed in depth and explained in a rational and logical way. The fact that we are here at this time is perhaps the fault of the Minister. If he had behaved in a proper manner, perhaps we would understand a little more clearly what is going on. The Minister is trying to stampede us into accepting the amendment.
I will not endorse any legislation that permits people to lie. Someone could sneak in somewhere, tell great lies, and point the finger of suspicion at some poor person who works in the establishment. Regretfully, cases are now before the courts because people have told lies and other people have been sent to prison. I cannot understand why the Minister supports the principle of people telling lies, but unfortunately the Government appear to be quite happy about that. They have misled the House and have been economical with the truth on many occasions since 1979. I cannot say that the Government tell lies because that would not be in order, but they have certainly misled the House. They may be used to that sort of practice, but I do not condone lying.
As I have said, without making the amendment, the Government could easily introduce practices which would tighten up security and which are so desperately needed if we are to guard the citizens residing in these islands. Obviously it is important when tourists come to this country that they know that security is good and tight. What will people in America and Europe think that we are doing if we pass legislation saying that we endorse people who tell lies? They will laugh us out of court. In view of the recent EC legislation, I feel sure that the Bill would be challenged to see whether it was acceptable under EC legislation. The Government have already accepted EC regulations.
So the Minister, no matter how he wraps it up, or how he sneers and smirks at the Dispatch Box, means that he


is condoning people telling lies. What would he do if the court said, "I'm sorry, Joe Bloggs, there's nowt we can do, the Minister condones it and we're only here to interpret the law"? That is unfortunate. I shall give some credit to the Government, because they have learnt some lessons since 1979 about how to tighten up. There is an old saying that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I do not suggest for one minute that the Government are corrupt—far from it. I am not saying that —although I might well think it. Power means that one can tell lies and get away with it. It is not on for us to pass legislation which says that people can tell lies to test security because people are too idle to think of alternative systems to test it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has said a good deal in his preamble. I am sure that he will now address his remarks to the amendments that we are discussing.

Mr. Redmond: I am trying to make my point. If it is correct, why did the Government wait until the Lords put the amendment in? Why did not the vast array of civil servants that the Minister has at his beck and call or all the alleged brains on the Conservative Benches think of the amendment? Why leave it to the other place to table amendments, which have such a deep effect on society? How can we expect people to tell the truth if we condone lies?
If we vote against the amendment it is not a question of our supporting profit against safety. As far as I am concerned, one has to tell the truth. I am happy to inform the Minister that if he continues in the same arrogant and conceited manner when he speaks on the other amendments before us tonight, we shall vote against every one. I cannot understand what he is saying when he rattles off ten to the dozen—

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the debate be now adjourned.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is, That the debate be now adjourned. Those of that opinion, say Aye.

Hon. Members: Aye.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: To the contrary, No.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Clear the Lobbies.

Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have put the Question. I shall hear the point of order afterwards.

Mr. Nellist: The point of order is about the Division. You are not deaf, Sir Paul. You could hear me when I shouted. The Minister was on his feet. It is no good you looking the other way and trying to ignore people.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have said that I shall take the hon. Gentleman's question after the Division has taken place.

Mr. Nellist: On a point of order. I do not want a stupid hat on—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I want to be quite clear that the House knows what we are doing. There was a certain

amount of noise. I shall put the Question once more. The Question is, That the debate be now adjourned—[Interruption.]

Mr. Don Dixon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This motion is debatable and we demand the right to debate it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is correct. This motion is debatable.

Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can we assume that as you have now recognised me we can open the debate on the motion that you called? The motion is about whether we should terminate the debate on this group of amendments at this point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to speak to the motion, he may do so.

Mr. Nellist: It is unfortunate that sometimes tempers have to rise in order to reach the point that we have now reached. It is a perfectly correct procedural point—

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): The hon. Gentleman should have spoken earlier.

Mr. Nellist: You may have heard the deputy Chief Whip remark from beside the Chair that I should have risen to speak. That was precisely what I was trying to do when I shouted, "On a point of order", at the top of my voice. I wanted to draw to your attention and that of the House what we now know to be correct—the motion is debatable. I am speaking to the motion on whether we should curtail the debate. My hon. Friends may have other reasons, but I have a couple of pertinent reasons why I do not want the debate on this group of amendments to finish now.
The first reason is the simple one that, when the Minister introduced the eight-strong group of amendments, I attempted to intervene to ask him a particular question. He refused, so I am left with no choice but to make a speech to ask my question. In future, the Minister might like to remember the lesson that he could save himself and his colleagues a great deal of time if occasionally he gave way.
The first point that I want to raise is that the group of amendments contains eight amendments, three of which —Nos. 5, 27 and 33—refer to earlier legislation. They refer to the Aviation Security Act 1982. While my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) was on his feet, I went to the Vote Office to obtain a copy of that Act. It occurred to me, as it may have occurred to other hon. Members, that it is a little difficult to decide whether a group of amendments should be allowed to go through on the nod or whether we should vote on each one if we do not know exactly how they relate to other legislation which is not readily available.
My point to the Minister—if I may have his attention; he might like to think about it—is that amendments Nos. 5, 27 and 33 seek to remove the words
in the course of his duties
and insert
exercise the power conferred by


in the amendment No. 5—section 20(2)(aa)—and in amendments Nos. 27 and 33—section 36(2)(aa). I have a reasonable question to put to the Minister. What is the difference between a general instruction such as
in the course of his duties
and the specific powers mentioned in the sections of the Act to which I referred?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now debating the amendments. I must remind him that we are debating whether the debate should be adjourned. His remarks must be restricted to that comparatively narrow motion before the House.

Mr. Nellist: I do not accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My problem is that, unless I tell you why I wanted the Minister to continue the debate and give me answers, I cannot make my case for allowing the debate to continue. I have questions on that group of amendments that I want the Minister to answer. I should have thought that that was reasonably in order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister cannot answer to amendments on a debate about whether or not the House should adjourn. I repeat, the hon. Gentleman must restrict his remarks to the motion that is now before the House.

Mr. Nellist: I fully accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The motion we are debating is whether or not we should pack up and go home. That is what it means in layman's language. If we pack up and go home, my hon. Friends and I will be unable to ask the Minister questions about the Bill. I have a particular question to ask the Minister, which is why I want the debate to continue.
I also want it to continue so that we can discuss an issue that was mentioned in passing by the Minister in his rapid opening speech. The accusation has been made that, if we vote against the amendments, we will be putting profit before safety. I would happily stay here until four or five o'clock in the morning debating that aspect.

Mr. Harry Barnes: I am not sure that it is correct to say that the motion is about whether or not we should pack up and go home. Even if the House agrees to it, there remain many other items on the Order Paper to be dealt with, including a very important measure concerning the Finance Act 1990, on which many right hon. and hon. Members may wish to speak. However, I take my hon. Friend's point that, if the motion is carried, it will destroy debate on the Bill, so we would have to return to it on another occasion.

Mr. Nellist: My hon. Friend is right to pull me up, but when I referred to packing up, I meant that in respect of the current debate, not the whole evening's business. My hon. Friend rightly drew attention to the fact that there is plenty of meat left on the Order Paper, and I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends have much of value to say in respect of those other items.
If the debate concludes now, we will be unable to discuss a number of important safety matters. I take particular umbrage at the suggestion that we are uninterested in such matters, as would my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Bradford,

South (Mr. Cryer), because only 13 days ago we demanded during business questions more debates on transport safety.
I refer also to the dispute lasting two or three weeks at Heathrow airport, involving British Airways maintenance and repair engineers and members of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, the Transport and General Workers Union and the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians. Right hon. and hon. Members might also wish to raise the question of the aircraft repaired in the midlands, the windscreen of which blew out on a subsequent flight. That plane had to be landed on the south coast, and the heroic air crew hung on to the pilot's legs to make sure he was kept alive to tell the tale.
The afternoon after that incident, I watched an American television programme called "They Walked Away". It was all about horrific car crashes at formula 1 race meetings and the like. Apparently racing cars can be reduced to 4 ft square and the driver can still get out and walk away. When one sees such programmes, one thinks, "Obviously it happened. It has been filmed." But it is amazing then to turn on the news and hear of an equally astonishing event that has happened on the same day—in this case, of the pilot being held by the legs for all those miles and living to tell the tale.
I do not want to prejudge investigations or inquiries that may take place into that incident, but I must emphasise that there was a link with Heathrow. The bolts that came to the midlands for use in the window were sent from somewhere. Somebody made the decision to send them, and that decision was made when those who would normally have made it were out on strike. These are matters of transport safety, and they are germane to the Bill.
I know that a number of my hon Friends will have comments to make in the debate so let me make one final point. If we do not continue our deliberations on the Bill this evening, I shall be unable to ask the Minister a question arising from his opening remarks. He said that, if anybody wanted to discuss, or even vote against, the amendments that we were debating before the motion, which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, accepted, was moved, that would destroy the possibility for statutory authority to be conferred on an authorised person to tell lies in the course of his duties or, if the amendments were carried, in the course of implementing sections of other Acts.
I am completely unclear as to who is doing the authorising. Numerous statutory bodies, such as security defence establishments, are being given out to cowboy private security firms, whose employees are on a couple of quid an hour. I wonder whether airports will follow suit. We know what has happened in one or two instances when lax security in defence establishments has caused almost tragic consequences. We must ask who is doing the authorisation.
The Minister gabbled his way through his opening remarks, trying to get through a few scrappy bits of paper as fast as he possibly could because he and the Whips had promised the troops, "We'll have this lot through in 10 minutes and then we'll go home." But there are questions that we must ask. Many of our constituents travel on planes, both to work and during their holidays. They want to know that, every time they get on a plane, they are in safe hands. They want to know that the airport is secure and that they are travelling on an aeroplane that has been well maintained and properly repaired.
All those questions are germane to the Bill, and if we are not allowed to continue to discuss them tonight, many of our constituents will not think that we earn the high salaries that many Members of Parliament are paid to scrutinise legislation. We should not go home until we have discussed those points fully.

Mr. Hardy: I shall not take long, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although I remind the Minister that when we began debates on the Bill we were not making long speeches and that he may have been responsible for extending the length of Opposition Members' speeches tonight.
I believe that we should stay here and finish discussing the Bill, and I want to put two arguments in support of my case. First, the Minister told us that the Bill was urgently needed and that it was very important from the point of view of passenger safety. If it is so important, the Government should ensure that it completes its passage through the House before we adjourn. It may well be our duty to consider the safety of passengers, and therefore to ensure that the Bill completes its passage and it would have been completed by now had the Government taken a more conciliatory and courteous view.
The second reason why I want us to complete our proceedings on the Bill is that I am extremely anxious that the House should thoroughly debate a number of other major issues. I know that my hon. Friends from the Barnsley and Doncaster areas, as well as those from the Rotherham metropolitan borough, are most anxious to have a proper debate about the appalling, dishonourable and corrupt action of the Government in poll tax capping our local authorities. I want the Bill out of the way so that we can deal with that matter properly. Now the Government have run for cover. They have offended the House and insulted the Opposition. They have treated the House with a degree of contempt to annoy us into making speeches so that they could come up with an excuse to adjourn the House. No doubt they will now say, "Because you delayed matters on 20 June we do not want to give you time to debate the dishonest and corrupt decision to poll tax cap at least four authorities in Yorkshire."
If the Government had been fair and reasonable, they would have given us guarantees that there would be opportunities for us to put the powerful cases that can be advanced in support of our constituencies. Unfortunately, we have seen no evidence from the Government that that proper consideration will apply. That shows that we should scrutinise the Government's legislation carefully. I am glad that we did so tonight because we have had a preposterous example of lying, to the point where we could call the Bill the Aviation, Maritime Security and Falsehoods Bill. That would be appropriate to clause 5.
I said that I did not want to speak for long, and I made short contributions to the earlier debates. I deeply regret that the Government are so careless about the security of passengers on ships and aircraft that they want to rush away without fulfilling their responsibilities.

2 am

Mrs. Alice Mahon: My hon. Friend referred briefly to the Government's undemocratic decision to poll tax cap councils. Is he aware that they based their criteria for capping on information that they received from authorities? They sought information about Calderdale, and we have evidence that they received it in two parts. First, the Tory manifesto—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot think that that intervention has anything to do with the motion before the House.

Mr. Hardy: I extracted from the Government—and it was published in the Official Report the other day—

Mrs. Mahon: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hardy: May I finish the point, after which I shall give way?
I extracted from the Government the other day—and it was published in the Official Report—a statement that listed the deprived areas of Britain in order of deprivation. Right at the bottom of the list are the metropolitan boroughs of Rotherham, Barnsley and Doncaster, which have suffered from the economic policies of this Government more than most parts of Britain. Given the danger that my hon. Friends and I see in that corrupt and unjust act, I hope that we shall subject every jot, tittle, comma, i and t in the Government's legislative programme to the scrutiny that we have given the Bill.

Mrs. Mahon: As I was saying, the Government obtained their information on poll tax capping in two parts—first, from a Tory manifesto in a local election, which clearly stated to the people of Calderdale that the Tories would reduce the poll tax by 50 per cent. The second source was a letter in the Halifax Evening Courier. The Government accepted that as information by which to set the poll tax cap.

Mr. Hardy: If we get time to debate those serious matters, I hope that the House will give them the same attention as it has given the Bill in the little time with which we have been provided to consider it.
I do not think that we should rise; the House should go on. It would have been possible for the Opposition to be persuaded to be a little more helpful and succinct, but we were not given that encouragement and the Government have run for cover at an excessively early hour. I am sorry that we have had to have this debate. We could have finished the Bill before now, but this simply illustrates the careless, arrogant and corrupt approach that the Government demonstrate almost every day.

Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlesborough): I am grateful to you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am sure that the House will appreciate your decision to allow us to continue this debate.
First, we should understand how today's business was decided. We all know that the Cabinet meets on Thursdays to decide the business; we all know that, earlier tonight, we had a long debate—which was guillotined, and therefore ended at 11 pm—on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. The Government knew that that debate would finish at 11 pm, leaving time for a full debate on Lords amendments to the Aviation and Maritime Security Bill. They also provided time for a debate on a motion entitled "Finance Bill [Money] (No. 2)", and another entitled "Procedure (Future Taxation) (No. 2)".
When the Government ordered tonight's business, they were well aware that both debates were open, with no time limit. They also knew that a series of amendments had been tabled to the Aviation and Maritime Security Bill, and that each amendment was likely to prompt Labour opposition and consequent votes. They must have known


—particularly given that the motion entitled "Procedure (Future Taxation) (No. 2)" is a departure from the practice of the House, referring as it does to
anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to matters which may be included in Finance Bills"—
that, if the Opposition were doing their job, they would question Ministers. The Government must have been prepared for a lengthy debate, and it does not seem reasonable for the Opposition to be told at this time of night that the Minister proposes to move to adjourn the debate.
I have some sympathy with the Minister for Aviation and Shipping. He was very honest when he led the House on Second Reading of the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill—a privatisation Bill. He gave specific reasons for the separation between the public Bill that should have been considered by the House and the private Bill that was considered, and about the fact that the House would have to meet to discuss a money resolution concerning why the Government would seek to claw back some of the assets by way of a measure in the Finance Bill.
I am glad to see the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) in his place. The right hon. Gentleman began the proceedings that led to the Tees and Hartlepool Bill: in a 1988 speech, he suggested that the ports should privatise themselves. Although he did not tell them that we should be sitting here at this time of the morning to discuss a money resolution whereby 50 per cent. of their assets would be taken from them, he has played an indirect part in tonight's proceedings.
Many Opposition Members—certainly, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes)—and the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) have come here, notwithstanding the early hour, to debate the Finance Bill money resolution. But we cannot debate it until we complete the debate on the Aviation and Maritime Security Bill. There is a series of wider considerations: the two motions are part and parcel of the Finance Bill, which must go back into Committee. A variety of new clauses are on the agenda, which would be debated as part of the money resolution and can only proceed if the resolution is passed tonight.
The Finance Bill motion has important ramifications which must not have escaped the Government or their business managers. Later today, the Leader of the House will make a business statement and deal with private Bill procedures. He will do so having studied reports on how to treat private legislation. By then, he should be aware of the mood of the House, as expressed in the debate on the money motion, of the fact that a private Bill is being used to privatise the Tees and Hartlepool port authority. By means of the motion, some 50 per cent. of the port's assets will be taken. It will be interesting to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether that legislation should proceed. If we do not continue the debate on the Aviation and Maritime Security Bill, we will not be able to put our points to him. Unless the Government rearrange the business of the House for tomorrow or other days, they will face difficulties in continuing with the proceedings on the Finance Bill.
A number of hon. Members are in the Chamber. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East is back, because I know that he wants to contribute. When there are Opposition Members who are

prepared, ready and willing to speak, why are we deprived of that opportunity because of the Minister's motion? It is worrying that the Government seem to feel that they can ride roughshod over the Opposition. After 11 years of Conservative government, we have seen a certain subversion of the rules of the House.
In relation to the Tees and Hartlepool privatisation, the Government used a private Bill route for public legislation. They used the Finance Bill to prevent legislation being hybrid. The Government are using the House of Commons for its convenience in relation to public Bills and hybrid Bills. Because of the difficulties with the Lords amendments to the Aviation and Maritime Security Bill, we end up with aggravation and short tempers.
The Government show a lack of consideration for the Opposition, who seek to do their constitutional duty in checking and challenging the Government and holding the Executive accountable.

Mr. Ray Powell: I wonder whether my hon. Friend will elaborate. He criticised the Minister for moving the adjournment motion. On checking the times, I found that the Minister spoke for two minutes on Lords amendment No. 5 and allowed only four hon. Members to speak before standing up to move that the debate be adjourned. Has my hon. Friend ever seen that happen before? It was rather dramatic of the Minister to speak for two minutes and allow only four speakers to contribute before he moved the motion. Some pressure must have been put on him.

Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Last night, when speaking to an amendment, the Secretary of State for Health spoke for 45 minutes. The Minister for Aviation and Shipping spoke for two minutes on the Lords amendment. We can therefore see the contrast between the approaches to this important subject. I was not present for that debate, but I wanted to refer to the Minister's honesty in an earlier debate, when he fully accepted that the Government were using the private Bill route to carry out public policy.
The result of that offhand treatment is that, later today, the Leader of the House is to explain how in future the Government intend to handle private Bills. However, we shall be unable to discuss the matter properly unless the Minister withdraws his motion and allows the House to continue the debate. I referred to the Minister's honesty when he accepted that the Government were using the private Bill route to carry out public policy, and that, in order to prevent the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill from becoming a hybrid Bill, 50 per cent. of the port authority's assets would be taken by the Treasury and added to the Finance Bill.
2.15 am
After 11 years in power, the Government have become offhand, with the result that, in the early hours of the morning, the Minister moves that consideration of Lords amendments should be adjourned. Hon. Members should be treated with greater courtesy. This is an open-ended debate. The House is entitled to hold a full debate on each amendment, to question the Minister and to elicit responses that last longer than the two minutes to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) referred.
The Opposition are ready to participate in the debate in an attempt to improve the Bill. It passed through all its stages in this House, went to the other place and has returned with amendments. It is now stranded on the beach. That amounts to further subversion of the House and to further offhand treatment by the Government of the conduct of business in the House. In a democracy, that cannot be right. The Chamber of the House of Commons is part of the legislature. We hold the Executive accountable, but we cannot do that if the Executive seek to use their powers arbitrarily.
The House of Commons evolved over many years, first by resisting the arbitrary powers of monarchs and, secondly, by resisting the arbitrary power of Governments. If the debate is not to be allowed to continue, that will be yet another arbitrary use of power by the Executive. The Government will be put to great inconvenience. They will have to arrange a date for the continuation of consideration of the Lords amendments and for debates on the two motions relating to finance. The entire legislative process will be slowed up.
Those hon. Members who wish to participate in the debate on the Bill ought to be allowed to do so. Those hon. Members who wish to take part in the debates on the Finance Bill [Money] (No. 2) and the Procedure (Future Taxation) (No. 2) motions should also be allowed to do so. If we were allowed to complete our business, we should be able to put questions later today to the Leader of the House on the private Bill routes that have been adopted by the Government. Everything would be in perspective. Such an arbitrary manner of bringing the debate to an end when hon. Members are anxious to speak is not in the best interests of the House.

Mr. Michael Welsh: I speak against the motion for two reasons. First, I should like to get the measure through, so we shall be asking for one and a half hours' debate for each of the poll tax measures. That will take up a tremendous amount of Government time. It is vital that we should finish discussing the Bill tonight, so that we have plenty of time to discuss the poll tax. That is reasonable, as it involves a tremendous number of people in our constituencies and we are asking for only one and a half hours for each authority. That is a fair and reasonable request. It shows how sincere we are about trying to help the Government fill their time.
I shall be brief, so my second and final point relates to amendment No. 5. The Minister, on behalf of the Government, is promoting legislation that will allow people to tell lies. I was under the impression that only a totalitarian state could give the power to tell lies. Under the rule of law, I do not consider that this Chamber can possibly pass an Act that allowed anybody to tell lies in the name of the Government. I do not think that that is allowed. It would not stand up in any British court, let alone the European Court.
I do not suppose that any hon. Member from either side of the House would choose to pass legislation allowing people to tell untruths under the umbrella of the House. It is immoral, and it is wrong: I should like the debate to continue so that the Minister can justify trying to pass legislation enabling individuals to tell untruths on behalf of the Government. If he is, he is in the wrong country —he is not in a democratic society but a totalitarian state.
Therefore, it is vital that the debate should continue so that the Minister can explain why he would give permission for our citizens to tell lies.

Sir Hector Monro: Despite the self-righteous speeches from Opposition Members, I want to put on record the true purpose of their operation tonight. Everyone knows that late night legislation appears on the Order Paper only after the business managers of both sides of the House and the usual channels have looked at the matter and reached a general conclusion that there will be little opposition. Obviously such an agreement has not been reached tonight.
I want to put on record a point which I feel most strongly as one who has seen an aircraft destroyed by terrorism. Opposition Members are delaying the Bill through extended debate tonight, despite the possibility of such incidents occurring again. Let it be on their heads that they are delaying a Bill that will provide security for the aircraft that fly over our country. It has been a proper disgrace that the hon. Gentlemen who set out purely to make the point that they do not like the community charge are prepared to risk the security of our aircraft and airports. They should all he ashamed of that and it is on record that that is why they have delayed the Bill tonight.

Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) wants to contribute to the debate, despite the early hour of 2.24 am, he should get his facts right.
The Minister spoke in support of Lords amendment No. 5 for only two minutes. After 25 minutes of debate, he decided to move the closure. The hon. Member for Dumfries has accused the Opposition of closing the debate when it is actually the Minister who is delaying the Bill. If the closure motion is carried, the Bill will be delayed. The hon. Member for Dumfries should get his facts right.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I take that to be a contribution to the debate, and not a point of order.

Mr. Hood: I am sure that we all have visited schools in our constituencies and talked to the young kids explaining how Parliament works, its procedures and how we are the bastions of democracy. There are 42 Lords amendments to the Aviation and Maritime Security Bill, and before the motion to adjourn was moved we had spent only two hours discussing that important Bill.
I was sad to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). I am sure that after he has considered what he said, he will regret his comments. To criticise the House for wanting to spend a little longer than two hours to discuss the 42 Lords amendments is wrong. I do not need to tell the hon. Member for Dumfries or anyone else about the real dangers of terrorism at our airports and ports.

Mr. Steve Norris: If the hon. Gentleman is so seized of the importance of this measure, can he point to any word in Hansard that he has uttered on this so-called vital Bill in which he professes such great interest at any stage of the proceedings on the Bill so far? If he cannot do that, is not the hon. Gentleman expressing appalling humbug?

Mr. Hood: I have been accused of many things and I suppose that many hon. Members have been accused of humbug. However, there has been more humbug from the


Government Benches. We should be discussing the Lords amendments. I am taking the opportunity given to an elected Member of this House to take part in our process.
If hon. Members believe that because an hon. Member has not spoken previously in debates on Bill he cannot speak now, the public will not understand that. I have heard Mr. Speaker say from the Chair that hon. Members should be careful about the image that they project to the public. Conservative Members are now claiming that any hon. Member who does not agree with the Government or has not spoken in opposition earlier is now not allowed to do so. That is the humbug that the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) accuses me of.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Is it not peculiar that, in a House of 650 Members, hon. Members should be criticised for speaking when they have not spoken earlier? If we followed that logic, no one would be able to speak in the House.

Mr. Hood: We all know how difficult it is for humble Back Benchers to speak in this place. Perhaps I have this opportunity to speak tonight because there are not many hon. Members present. I strongly oppose the motion.
It is the duty of the Opposition to scrutinise legislation. When we have 42 Lords amendments to consider and only two hours elapse before a closure motion is moved, it is unsatisfactory and—

Mr. Barnes: On the point about hon. Members choosing to speak in this debate, I confess that I came into the Chamber for this debate because I was interested in what was due to be considered after this Bill—I refer to the motions relating to the Finance Bill—but having listened, I began to be interested in these proceedings. I have made only one speech on this matter, lasting three minutes, and about three interventions.
However, I believe that I am entitled to be interested in our proceedings and that later, If I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am also entitled to take part in this debate about why we should not adjourn our consideration now. That is the nature of the Chamber—an hon. Member can come in, pick up a debate, follow it, and become interested, and make his own contribution or listen to those of other hon. Members. One can thus learn and advance one's knowledge of the procedures. The trouble with Conservative Members is that they do not understand the procedures of democracy.

Mr. Hood: I fully agree with my hon. Friend—[Interruption.] I am about to conclude my remarks, but the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) is intervening from a sedentary position. I shall give way to him if he would like me to do so.

Mr. Alistair Burt: I was simply saying that the biggest humbug in this place at the moment is that Opposition Members will not admit that this is a row about timing and procedure. They will not put that on the record in Hansard. Why will not Opposition Members say what is going on and what this is all about?

Mr. Hood: I do not deny that this is an argument about timing and procedure. We object to the amount of time that the House has been given to discuss 42 Lords amendments—

Mr. Burt: That is not true.

Mr. Hood: That is what I am objecting to. That is what this debate is about.

Mr. Alan Meale: Is not the truth that all the noise that is coming from Conservative Members is because they are whingeing about why they are having to stay tonight, to do the job for which they are paid? They all want to go home to bed. That is why we are hearing whingeing from the other side of the Chamber.

Mr. Hood: My hon. Friend makes a point— [Interruption.]

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Some of these Labour Members did not even turn up for Third Reading or Report.

Mr. Harry Barnes: So what?

Mr. Hood: If I may take a prompt—

Mr. Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I feel sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will not allow sub-committees in the Chamber to chat back and forth among themselves. Will you ask hon. Members who want to speak on the important issue of the closure to seek to catch your eye?

Mr. Hood: I shall resume my seat when I have made my final points. I refer back to what Mr. Speaker has told us to do in connection with how we project our image outside this place and about the way in which we are supposed to encourage people to have faith in the democratic process. I take my prompt on this from the hon. Member for Bury, North. If we are talking about what is prompting hon. Members to speak, I must advise the House that Opposition Members are concerned about acts of terrorism. There is nothing wrong with our wanting to debate that in great detail.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) has said, we often hear things in the Chamber of which we were not previously aware and to which we want to respond. That is perfectly fair. Depriving Opposition Members of making their contributions may help the Government to win in the short term, but they should think about what they are doing to the democratic process in the long term. Far too often in the past 11 years this House of democracy—we tell the whole world that we are the mother of democracy—has had its democratic rights removed. The Government may be using their majority to further that process now, but as long as we are the Opposition, we shall use our time and our rights to object to that.

Mr. Redmond: I oppose the closure motion, and I am surprised that it was moved after our short consideration of the Lords amendments. I am interested in the security of my constituents, of the people of Great Britain and of people throughout the world, and it is a tragedy that our debates have been interrupted. Some of the controversy that seems to be developing could have been avoided if a more reasonable attitude had been adopted by the


Minister. It is disgusting to speak for only two minutes on a large group of Lords amendments. It seems that the Minister seeks to treat the House with contempt.
I believe that we can complete our consideration of the Lords amendments tonight. If Conservative Members are interested in security for their constituents and for the constituents of other hon. Members, they should vote against the closure motion. There is no reason why we should not continue to discuss the Lords amendments. We could make progress in another two or two-and-a-half hours of debate. I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you can recall many occasions when far less progress was made than that which has been achieved tonight.
It seems that the Government are not prepared to listen to arguments that are directed against Government legislation. That is a tragedy. The Government are not prepared to practise what they preach to the rest of the world. They should remember that they tell others to follow the example set by the Mother of Parliaments. They are setting a disgusting example tonight.
It appears that hon. Members want to go to bed instead of discussing safety and security. Surely they recognise that important issues are before us and—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) wishes to intervene, I shall give way to him.

Mr. Michael Brown: The hon. Gentleman talks about hon. Members going home to bed. The Labour party has 200-plus Members in this place, yet only 17 of them participated in the previous Division. About 95 per cent. of Labour Members are now tucked up in bed.

Mr. Redmond: I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's intervention. There is an old saying about "all wind" and so on. The hon. Gentleman yapped about the number of Labour Members currently in the House and the number of Conservative Members who are present. He should understand that the Government are keeping up their lads for their nightcaps. There is an important difference between quality and quantity. If the hon. Gentleman is interested in the safety and security of his constituents, he should support the Opposition when we vote against the closure. He should have paid more attention to our proceedings and taken his place a little earlier to listen to some of our discussions.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman likes people to tell lies on behalf of the state. Many things come to light because people have told lies. People have been put in prison as a result of telling lies. He may be prepared to tolerate the telling of lies, but I am not. I want honesty. I want truthfulness.
The hon. Gentleman wants to give management a blank cheque with which to get out of its predicament, but the same hon. Gentleman has voted time and again to withdraw the rights for which people have fought over the years. I dare say that, given the chance, he would introduce legislation to take away the vote from the good women of this country. That is the typical, arrogant attitude of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes.

Mr. Hood: The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), with whom my hon. Friend disagreed, was probably influenced by his trips to South Africa, which my hon. Friend and I both know quite a lot about.
Has my hon. Friend noticed—obviously Conservative Members have not—that while the motion to adjourn is being debated, the Whips have disappeared? I wonder where they are.

Mr. Nellist: On the phone.

Mr. Hood: Yes, on the phone. We shall see the Minister come back with wax in his eyes. A Minister walked through the Chamber five minutes ago who had been pulled out of his bed. There have been so many Tories in the House tonight—the Whips are on the phone now getting them back so that they have 100 Members to win the closure motion. That is how confident the Tory Whips are of the number of Tory Members present.

Mr. Redmond: It could well be that the Whips had wax in their eyes, but I should have liked to see a tear or two. It takes emotions to create tears and, unfortunately, Conservative Whips do not have the sort of emotions to bring tears to their eyes.

Mr. Nellist: I will. I wonder if my hon. Friend agrees that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), who does such a wonderful impersonation of B'stard that it amazes me every time—[HON. MEMBERS: "Of what?"]—of B'stard, a character on television with which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may not be familiar—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I heard the hon. Gentleman use an unparliamentary expression in relation to another hon. Member. Can he assure me that that is not so?

Mr. Nellist: B'stard is a character in a television serial, with which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may be unfamiliar. There is an apostrophe in the word, which is not "bastard" but "B'stard"—the name of a Tory Member of Parliament in a television series, which I can highly recommend and which most of my hon. Friends enjoy watching.
I was going to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) whether he thought that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes was wrong to complain that only 17 Labour Members were present for the debate. Does not he agree that if 17 of us can keep in the Chamber nearly 100 Members from a party that always tries to give us lectures about productivity, we must be doing something right?

Mr. Redmond: I am not sure whether to continue along those lines, but I should have hoped that hon. Members would be in the Chamber listening. I had better not repeat the name of the television character because I have a lisp and might not pronounce it correctly. I should not want you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to jump down my throat. It is an excellent show, but unfortunately, because of your onerous duties in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you do not get the opportunity to see it. You should because the character represents one or two Conservative Members. I am sure that the public, having seen what has taken place here this evening on the Bill, will draw similarities between that show and what is going on here.

Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend is making an interesting and important contribution on why the debate should continue. However, when the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) made his interesting contribution and talked of 17 Opposition Members voting on the previous amendment, was not he misdirected? I made it


clear that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) and I were in the Chamber so that when this debate came to its proper conclusion we could then debate the Finance Bill provisions which are important to my constituents, and the constituents of the hon. Member for Stockton, South. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes was under a misapprehension when he referred to 17 Labour Members voting on the previous amendment.

Mr. Redmond: Unfortunately, young lads have a tendency not to listen, and when they do not listen they do not understand what is going on around them. One of the reasons—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Tim Renton): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 112, Noes 17.

Division No. 248]
[2.46 am


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Ground, Patrick


Amess, David
Hague, William


Amos, Alan
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Arbuthnot, James
Hanley, Jeremy


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Harris, David


Ashby, David
Hayward, Robert


Batiste, Spencer
Hind, Kenneth


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Boswell, Tim
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Irvine, Michael


Bowis, John
Jack, Michael


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Jackson, Robert


Brazier, Julian
Janman, Tim


Bright, Graham
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Burns, Simon
Kirkhope, Timothy


Burt, Alistair
Knapman, Roger


Butcher, John
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Butterfill, John
Lang, Ian


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lightbown, David


Carrington, Matthew
Lilley, Peter


Cash, William
Lord, Michael


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Chapman, Sydney
McLoughlin, Patrick


Chope, Christopher
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Mitchell, Sir David


Day, Stephen
Monro, Sir Hector


Devlin, Tim
Moss, Malcolm


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Neubert, Michael


Dover, Den
Nicholls, Patrick


Durant, Tony
Norris, Steve


Fallon, Michael
Page, Richard


Favell, Tony
Paice, James


Fishburn, John Dudley
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Forth, Eric
Raffan, Keith


Franks, Cecil
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Freeman, Roger
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Sackville, Hon Tom


Gill, Christopher
Shaw, David (Dover)


Goodlad, Alastair
Shelton, Sir William


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Gregory, Conal
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)





Stevens, Lewis
Wells, Bowen


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wheeler, Sir John


Summerson, Hugo
Widdecombe, Ann


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wilkinson, John


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Wood, Timothy


Thurnham, Peter



Wallace, James
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Mr. Nicholas Baker and Mr. Irvine Patrick.


Watts, John





NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Meale, Alan


Bell, Stuart
Nellist, Dave


Buckley, George J.
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Cryer, Bob
Redmond, Martin


Dixon, Don
Skinner, Dennis


Fisher, Mark
Snape, Peter


Foster, Derek
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Graham, Thomas



Hardy, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Haynes, Frank
Mr. Jimmy Hood and Mr. Harry Cohen.


Illsley, Eric



McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must first put the next Question. I shall take the point of order after that.

Question put accordingly, That the debate be now adjourned:—

The House divided: Ayes 112, Noes 19.

Division No. 249]
[2.57 am


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Amess, David
Gill, Christopher


Amos, Alan
Goodlad, Alastair


Arbuthnot, James
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Gregory, Conal


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Ground, Patrick


Ashby, David
Hague, William


Batiste, Spencer
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hanley, Jeremy


Boswell, Tim
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Harris, David


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Hayward, Robert


Bowis, John
Hind, Kenneth


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Brazier, Julian
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Bright, Graham
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Irvine, Michael


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Jack, Michael


Burns, Simon
Jackson, Robert


Burt, Alistair
Janman, Tim


Butcher, John
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Butterfill, John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Carrington, Matthew
Knapman, Roger


Cash, William
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Lang, Ian


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Chapman, Sydney
Lightbown, David


Chope, Christopher
Lilley, Peter


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Lord, Michael


Day, Stephen
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Devlin, Tim
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
McLoughlin, Patrick


Dover, Den
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Durant, Tony
Mitchell, Sir David


Fallon, Michael
Monro, Sir Hector


Favell, Tony
Moss, Malcolm


Fishburn, John Dudley
Neubert, Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Nicholls, Patrick


Forth, Eric
Norris, Steve


Franks, Cecil
Page, Richard


Freeman, Roger
Paice, James






Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thurnham, Peter


Porter, David (Waveney)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Raffan, Keith
Wallace, James


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Watts, John


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wells, Bowen


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wheeler, Sir John


Shelton, Sir William
Widdecombe, Ann


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wilkinson, John


Stevens, Lewis
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wood, Timothy


Summerson, Hugo



Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Mr. Nicholas Baker and Mr. Irvine Patrick.


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)





NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Bell, Stuart
Meale, Alan


Buckley, George J.
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Cohen, Harry
Skinner, Dennis


Cryer, Bob
Snape, Peter


Dixon, Don
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Fisher, Mark



Foster, Derek
Tellers for the Noes:


Haynes, Frank
Mr. Dave Nellist and Mr. Martin Redmond.


Hood, Jimmy



Illsley, Eric

Question accordingly agreed to.

Debate to be resumed this day.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you will have seen tonight from your own observations, the business of the House, as conducted by the Government, has been a complete shambles. The Government Chief Whip has had to organise telephone communications to 60 or 70 Members.
In view of that, I wonder whether you, Sir, have had a request from a senior Minister—perhaps the Prime Minister—to make a statement on the disorganisation of the Government business and the possibility of an early dissolution so that we can get a Government to organise the business and get some decent legislation through.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There has been no such request.

Mr. Bell: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I understand it, we shall not now be debating the Finance Bill [Money] (No. 2) motion or the Procedure (Future Taxation) (No. 2) motion. If that is so, have the Government notified you of any business statement to put the business of the House, which has been so disrupted and disjointed tonight, back on the rails? Has a senior Minister told you that there will be a business statement on when we will be able to debate these orders?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is jumping the gun a bit because I have not put the Question on those motions, which must be moved by a member of the Government. If they are not, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that tomorrow—or is it today?—a business statement will be made and he may have an opportunity to ask a question about that.
We now move to motion No. 4, Finance Bill [Money] (No. 2).

Lords Commissioner to the Treasury (Mr. John M. Taylor): Not moved.

Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall complete the motions on the Order Paper. Motion No. 5, Procedure (Future Taxation) (No. 2).

Mr. Taylor: Not moved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Motion No. 6, Ways and Means.

Mr. Taylor: Not moved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Motion No. 7, Ways and Means.

Mr. Taylor: Not moved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Motion No. 8, Ways and Means.

Mr. Taylor: Not moved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Motion No. 9, Organic Food.

Mr. Taylor: Not moved.

Mr. Norris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance on the parliamentary use of the term unutterable humbug? Tonight, a series of appallingly inept speeches were made by Opposition Members, manufacturing the most ludicrous arguments on issues about which they had not expressed the slightest interest at any other stage of the Bill. They have caused a measure dealing with the extremely serious issue of international terrorism to be postponed. Is it appropriate for me to place on the record that such conduct by the Opposition, who cannot be controlled by their party Whips, is evidence of unutterable humbug?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has used the phrase, which sometimes is regarded as rather endearing.

Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do not you agree that the Government have postponed the legislation? They have moved the closure and a progress motion that the debate stand over to a further day. The Opposition were prepared, if necessary, to scrutinise the Bill through the night. If not all of us, certainly one or two of us would not accept the accusation made by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) that we are not concerned about matters such as safety. For seven years, I have brought before Parliament safety issues affecting air and other forms of transport.

Mr. Michael Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall take the hon. Gentleman's point of order, but the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is sitting patiently and I am anxious to hear what he wants to say.

Mr. Brown: I do not know what the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) and his colleagues were doing tonight. The Bill was passed on Second and Third Reading without a Division, presumably because it was regarded by all hon. Members as vital to air and maritime safety. Is it in order for one or two hon. Members who did not speak on Second or Third Reading to seek, for reasons other than the safety of passengers travelling on aeroplanes, to disrupt the safety of passengers in the way that has been done tonight?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot return to debate a matter that the House has already decided. We must get on with the Adjournment.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it a different point of order?

Mr. Skinner: Yes.
Speeches come in all shapes and sizes, as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker—you have to hear a lot of them. But I take great exception to the behaviour of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris). He should not come here and lecture us about making speeches. He made one last week when he had been to a dinner party with Mr. Speaker, who offended him—very slightly, but it upset him. He spoke against the Government for a quarter of an hour or so, and then, when we had a Division, he ran away.
If hon. Members wish to talk about wasting time, there is a prime example. If anyone was engaging in humbug, the hon. Gentleman was doing so last week.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is high time that we got on with the Adjournment.

Natural History Museum

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

Mr. Tam Dalyell: This is the first debate on the problems of the natural history museum since the time of Victoria and Albert. The director and senior curators were in the Gallery until 2 am, when, naturally —having a day's work to do—they went to their beds. They could be forgiven for thinking that the House of Commons contains some very curious and unusual specimens.
I spent some 10 hours attending the recent defence debates, and, indeed, participated. I say that to put the problems of the natural history museum in context. I argued the case for ending our main battle tank programme. Getting rid of one tank would alleviate the cost of the crisis in south Kensington; getting rid of two would restore south Kensington to its former level of ability to carry out its programmes. Getting rid of three would, it is reckoned, fulfil the obligations of south Kensington and Britain to the world: in this context, they are very real.
The armies of Mr. Gorbachev and Mr. Yeltsin, rolling across the north German plain, are not now the main threat to this country. The real peril posed to Britain—and Europe—is global warming, the destruction of the ozone layer, acid rain and other environmental problems. South Kensington can provide the crucial raw material for the battle against that threat.
The Minister has received a number of letters from all around the world—from Paris, Berlin, Copenhagen, Helsinki and Washington—all pleading the case for the natural history museum. Let me quote just one, from Cardiff: as a former beekeeper, I think it appropriate. Dr. Paxton writes:
I wish to bring to your attention my deep concern over the proposed course of action detailed in the Corporate Plan concerning the termination of taxonomic work on bees and wasps at the Natural History Museum.
Bees and wasps are important components of our fauna, not only as entities in their own rights but also as vital pollinators of a wide range of wild plants. In addition, there are growing agricultural industries based upon the uses of bees and wasps (e.g. honey production, pollination of agricultural crops). Over the past 8 years, whist a PhD student and subesequently whilst lecturing at UWC Cardiff in the Bee Research Unit, I have often required the taxonomic skills of those at the Natural History Museum concerned with bees and wasps for my personal researches. The Bee Research Unit at Cardiff has a growing number of students, a product of the increased awareness of the role and importance of bees both in agriculture and conservation throughout the world. They, too, have made good use of the excellent and unique expertise in bees and wasps at the Natural History Museum. I feel that this expertise is well worth maintaining.
One of the hardest-hit sections in entomology is hymenoptera where research on most of the aculeate forms would be closed down under the plan. Bees, of course, are the most important of insect pollinators and stinging wasps, which are the bird of prey of the insect world, are important predators. Both groups are therefore of first-class environmental significance.
The hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) will bear out the fact, because he was with me at


the post office, that this evening I opened two letters from a small collection of mail. Professor Exley of the university of Queensland wrote:
As an entomologist, I am fully aware of the enormous contribution the Museum has made to our knowledge of insects. Its significance is that the collections contain specimens from all over the world so that international workers need only travel to one place to gain a perspective of the world fauna. The acquisition of specimens is not very useful unless they are made accessible and how can that be if staff is cut too drastically?
He continued:
I can't understand how you can have an aim concerning quality of the environment and simultaneously stop research on bees, wasps, bugs, weevils, lacewings and spiders. Lacewings, spiders and wasps are major predators and bees are largely responsible for the pollination of flowering plants. All these insect groups have enormous impact on the environment.
It seems especially ridiculous that just when the world seems to be growing aware of the ecological importance of aculeate Hymenoptera, the largest world collection of these insects is to be kept on a care and maintenance basis only.
Dr. Packer of York university in Ontario, Canada, wrote:
It is sheer sacrilege to consider defiling such a globally important institution in this manner—an act of governmental vandalism that will shame the nation as much as the acts of football barbarians, but with far more serious long term repercussions.
That concerned view among informed people can be repeated time and again.
Last Monday, 11 June, I spoke for 18 minutes, setting out the whole case. This evening, it is more important to hear the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and the Minister.

Mr. Mark Fisher: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Does the hon. Member have the agreement of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and the Minister to speak?

Mr. Dalyell: Yes.

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): Yes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Mark Fisher.

Mr. Fisher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and to the Minister for allowing me to intervene in this short debate. I am sure that all those people in this country and elsewhere who care about the natural history museum, Britain's scientific heritage and the quality of our national museums will thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate and for the way that he introduced it.
I have one question for the Minister. I remind him of the question that the Senate of Scientists at the Smithsonian institute in Washington put to him in a letter of 14 June:
Surely Britain can find a place for the primary research and public education that have brought the NHM world renown and act as a barometer of the cultural health of the nation?
The answer appears to be no. The museum is being forced to cut 15 per cent. of its scientific staff, crucial skill departments, such as its exhibition in-house unit—which has won awards for the superb creepy-crawlies exhibition—and the specialisms that my hon. Friend outlined.
The reason is that the museum has to save £2 million each year. The cuts will enable it to save that sum. Who is

to blame? The Government are to blame. The chairman of the museum's trustees, Sir Walter Bodmer, writing on 14 June in Nature, said:
The essence of our financial problem is that the Government's grant in aid will not compensate adequately for inflation".
Sir Walter is not a politically motivated man—he is an excellent and well-respected chairman of the museum's trustees—yet he makes it clear where the responsibility lies and what is the cause of the cuts.
The question for the Minister, to which the whole scientific world and the whole museum world needs an answer, is whether the Government will fund adequately this great museum. Will they fund it in such a way as not just to ensure the safety of its 67 million specimens but also to ensure that it can continue and develop its scientific research? Much is at stake, not only for the natural history museum but also for the quality of scholarship and research in all our national museums. The millions of people who have visited the natural history museum and our other great national museums wait for reassurance that funds will be found to maintain the international reputation of our scientific culture.

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): I congratulate the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on obtaining this debate on a very important issue: the natural history museum and its objectives and priorities. I welcome it. All hon. Members acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's interest and expertise in scientific matters. It is significant that at this late hour the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) is also here, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) who has conveyed to me a number of letters on the subject that he has received from constituents. I am impressed that so many hon. Members are present at this hour.
Let me take this opportunity—I am glad to have it—to set the scene in the broadest context that I can. I hope that the hon. Member for Linlithgow will find it helpful.
I am in no doubt, and I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree, that in the natural history museum the nation has a great asset. On my visits to the museum I am always highly impressed by the quality of its staff and its high standards of display, curation and research. It is second to none. This applies when measured on a national or an international scale. The natural history museum is an institution of which we can all feel very proud: a British museum leading the world in its field.
Under the 1963 Act the museum has a statutory duty to care for the nation's natural history collection. Responsibility for setting priorities and taking decisions on the museum's approach to fulfilling that statutory duty lies with the director and trustees.
It is the museum's announcement on 23 April 1990 of priorities and decisions in its corporate plan that has given rise to the concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman. I shall try to set the scene and answer some of his questions.
The Government's record on funding the natural history museum is good. Reflecting my commitment to the value of the museum's work, I announced last November a 16·5 per cent. increase in its total grant in aid to a new 1990–91 figure of £25·2 million, including an 11·4 per cent. increase in running costs and provision for the replacement of its Ruislip store.
Over the past 10 years the Government's contribution has risen by 12·8 per cent. in real terms, but I must make it absolutely plain that this figure includes funding for the geological museum which the natural history museum took over in 1985 and the purchase of office supplies previously covered by Crown Suppliers. That is in addition to the substantial resources which the museum has raised. These have risen from £4·6 million in 1989–90 to a projected £6·8 million in 1990–91. They now account for over 21 per cent. of the museum's total resources. I warmly congratulate the museum on its increasing success in this area and the efforts that it is making. I am encouraged by the way in which it is developing its plural funding. While, like all institutions, the museum has to live within its means and is determined to do so, the changes it is now proposing are not primarily about money but about reassessing the museum's objectives and priorities.
In a recent article in Nature, Sir Walter Bodmer, the chairman of the trustees of the museum to whom the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) referred and who is an outstandingly good chairman, said:
It would be impossible to carry out effective research on all the groups of organisms in the museum's collections, even if our resources for research were doubled or trebled.
The proposed changes are set out in the museum's 1990 corporate plan, which looks forward at least five years. The key objectives of the reorganisation proposed in that corporate plan are to strengthen curation; to focus research effort more sharply into areas of particular importance; to improve the management of the collections; and to develop exhibition facilities and other services for all who use the museum. Those aims are fully in line with the museum's statutory duties. Their object is not just to maintain but to improve the care and maintenance of the nation's natural history collection of over 67 million specimens, as well as the largest natural history library in the world.
As Sir Walter explains:
The museum supports a major research programme based on its collections, with taxonomy as its central theme … taxonomy is the science of classification of living organisms and, with its evolutionary basis, provides the underpinning to almost all biological research.

Mr. Dalyell: Does not that make the museum a special financial case for funds because so many other institutions depend on it, as do other countries? Is not it part of Britain's worldwide international obligation?

Mr. Luce: Yes. In no way do I underestimate the significance and importance of the research that is carried out, some of which is unique because of the nature of the institution. If the hon. Gentleman allows me to continue I shall be able to reflect on some of the points he raised.
The letters that I have received from all parts of the world clearly demonstrate the museum's wide sphere of influence in taxonomy. There is no doubt about that.
It is generally recognised that a focus for taxonomic research in the United Kingdom is vital. The natural history museum provides that focus and will continue to do so. Taxonomy will continue to pervade all the museum's scientific work. But, as Sir Walter Bodmer has said, no institution can carry out effective research across the whole range of animal and plant life. It is obviously necessary to pick and choose. The museum intends to concentrate its research efforts primarily into a series of six

scientific programmes that emphasise the unique and vital contribution its collections and expertise make to issues of contemporary human concern. Those six programmes will be biodiversity; environmental quality—which the hon. Gentleman mentioned; living resources; mineral resources; human health and human origins. Under those broad headings come many specific areas of research. Those programmes have been designed to respond to changing needs and the museum believes that by their interdisciplinary nature they will enhance co-operation between the museum and other national and international organisations.
The museum has also announced that for the foreseeable future it will cease or severely restrict research in some areas—I stress that—of botany, entomology, mineralogy, palaeontology and zoology. But I should stress that there will be no diminution of the care and maintenance of all the museum's collections. While in-house research may be curtailed, I also emphasise that the museum's collections will continue to be available to anyone who wants to work on them. That goes a considerable way towards answering the important letter from Dr. Paxton in Cardiff, from which the hon. Member for Linlithgow quoted, about the availability of research facilities and the museum's care and maintenance policies. I will of course have that point more closely looked into and I hope in a moment to expand on what I intend to do.

Mr. Dalyell: If people are given retirement or made redundant or have to leave the museum for financial reasons, in practice the availability is that much less. I am saddened that some scholars who have given a lifetime of service have been given early retirement. That is terribly sad.

Mr. Luce: I will reflect briefly in a moment on the staffing situation.
It is important that curatorial skills will not only be maintained but enhanced. A more effective and efficient advisory service will be provided for all those who use the museum. In addition, the museum will continue to provide unique training for scientists drawn from this country and worldwide.
In the context of the comments made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow, it is perfectly possible for the museum to apply for grants and respond to requests for research from any relevant source, whatever those sources may be, including universities or research councils, so long as the proposed research fits within the museum's objectives. That is clear and I have given the trustees a clear instruction that that is possible and people can make applications. That would be in addition to the research that I have already said will continue.

Mr. Dalyell: That is important and I support the Minister on that.

Mr. Luce: Naturally the announcement of those plans has generated a lively discussion about the relative priorities that should be accorded to particular areas of research at the museum. I know that the museum is in close touch with the scientific community on those points. Indeed, last Friday a special meeting was arranged at the museum to discuss those issues.
As the director, Dr. Chalmers, told the meeting on Friday, the museum is also in discussion with the Government's chief scientific adviser, as are my officials. I


have asked the adviser to keep me informed of the museum's position in relation to the United Kingdom's science base. I hope that the hon. Member for Linlithgow appreciates the importance of that.

Mr. Dalyell: Is that Professor Stewart?

Mr. Luce: No, Sir John Fairclough, the chief scientific adviser to the Government. I shall be calling a further meeting with Sir Walter Bodmer and Dr. Chalmers to discuss the corporate strategy and the wider issues.
To achieve the aims that the museum has clearly identified and published it has to adapt. I understand that the museum intends to make more appointments on a fixed-term basis, and that will be reflected in a reduction in permanent posts. It is important to make that clear, because that point has not perhaps been sufficiently clear hitherto.
The necessary reductions will be achieved, where possible, by natural wastage and through some redeployment within the museum. The detailed arrangements are, of course, matters for the director and the trustees.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow referred to other letters and he has sent me copies of communications that he has received. I assure him that I will take the views that have been expressed extremely seriously in the discussions that I will be having with the chairman of the natural history museum and the director, Dr. Chalmers. I believe the staff do an outstanding job. We are very fortunate to have them. They are taking any representations extremely seriously as I requested that they should and they are looking into all the points that are raised. In my meeting with Sir Walter Bodmer, I shall then have the opportunity to go through many of these issues and discuss the wider implications.
Major changes of the kind proposed at the natural history museum are inevitably difficult to make and, of course, can be painful. I should therefore like to make clear my appreciation of the museum's staff and the valuable work they do. I am sure that the proposed changes will take the museum into the 1990s with renewed vigour and contribute to my overall aim of ensuring that the highest standards of excellence in scholarship and research are allied to maximum public access to the museum's treasures. It is by giving people today the chance to see and enjoy the museum's unique collections that we shall ensure a healthy future for scholarship and research in natural history.
I want to give the hon. Member for Linlithgow the broadest possible answer to his questions on this important issue. He may already have this document but, if not, I shall make it available to him because I should like him to see the extensive range of research that the museum is planning to undertake in the years ahead. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern that certain areas will be jeopardised. As I have already said, the wider implications of that will be examined carefully. I urge him to look at the document because it illustrates that within the six research programmes that I have highlighted there is a wide diversity of research to be carried out, covering a wide range of issues. I find it most impressive. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I attach great importance to the debate that he has launched today and that I shall take what he has said fully into account.

Mr. Fisher: Much of what the Minister has said today will provide considerable reassurance and be worth studying. People around the museum and in the science world will read carefully what he has said. However, he has given the impression that the changes in the corporate plan were positive changes, taken for scientific reasons, whereas the corporate plan and what Sir Walter wrote in Nature magazine last week make it clear that the museum has to take this action to save £2 million. The museum has made it clear on all occasions that if it was adequately funded by the Government, it would not have to make these extremely difficult scientific decisions. The Minister must address that point. His remarks have—inadvertently—addressed only the scientific element, on which he has given a reasonable and helpful reply, but will he address the fact that it is his Government's neglect and underfunding that have put the museum in the position of having to make these difficult scientific choices?

Mr. Luce: I shall reiterate what I said at the beginning. It is not reasonable to suggest that the Government are underfunding in a year when we have increased funding by 16·5 per cent., which is a substantial increase and includes an increase of 11·4 per cent. for the running costs. It is not reasonable to suggest that that is gross underfunding. It shows the significance that we attach to the work of the natural history museum.
However, the hon. Gentleman is right about the corporate plan. I ask each national museum and gallery to look at a corporate strategy, which includes every aspect of their work, including, for example, accessibility to the public, the extent to which they make their scholarship and research available to the public, and their exhibitions. After all, they need to do a great deal of work on their exhibitions. I understand that it is a priority. I shall take the corporate strategy carefully into account. As hon. Members know, it looks five years ahead and, as they also know, with the help of the Treasury, I plan budgets for three years ahead. I shall take the views expressed in the corporate strategy seriously into account before reaching a final decision about the next three years' funding.

Mr. Dalyell: I, too, think that the Minister has given a helpful answer tonight. I say that publicly and privately —and many things in it can be built on. However, I am bothered about his use of the word "jeopardised" because what are jeopardised are important collections and research availability on the most vital matters affecting the global environment, such as the diatoms and the whole question of entymology. Some of those areas are being threatened, yet they are the very lifeblood of increasingly important sciences.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) said from the Opposition Front Bench, anyone who sees the 25 million specimens in spirits will understand that someone has to maintain them. They are biodegradable. They go back to the time of Captain Cook. They are treasures of immense importance and science can make use of them. A comparison has to be made with other spending and there are many other yardsticks, but we are dealing with a vital lifeblood.

Mr. Luce: I think that the hon. Gentleman's intervention pinpoints the importance that I, Sir Walter Bodmer, and the chief scientific adviser attach to assessing the wider implications. I believe that that assessment is the key and that it must be given serious consideration. I must


defend the natural history museum. It has to take decisions within its resources and decide its priorities. I must assess what it sets out in the corporate strategy and take its views seriously into account. I have already undertaken to the hon. Gentleman that that is something that I shall do.

Mr. Dalyell: I have a particular comment to make, and it involves the Prime Minister. I am not getting at her. In

1981, she confirmed to me, as she said in 1979, that she is the Minister who is responsible for co-ordinating science—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at fifteen minutes to Four o'clock.